Recovery actions against beneficiaries require adherence to prescribed audit procedures, and liability cannot be assigned without proper notice.

1. The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of recovery action taken by the Koovappady Grama Panchayat and its Secretary, respondents 2 and 1 respectively, to recover an amount of Rs. 5,36,379/- equally from the petitioners, who are members of the beneficiary committee, and the President, Secretary, Assistant Executive Engineer, Overseer etc., on the basis of the audit report submitted by the Auditor in respect of a scheme carried out by the Panchayat through the beneficiary committee.

2. Separate narration of facts is not required since the facts and circumstances of the writ petitions are typical. Therefore, I propose to dispose of the writ petitions by this common judgment. The pleadings and documents as referred to in W. P. (C) No. 17365 of 2013 is relied upon for disposal of the writ petitions.

3. The Koovappady Grama Panchayat, the 2nd respondent, executed a work through a beneficiary committee consisting of petitioners 1 to 7 in W. P. (C) No. 17365 of 2013 and the 2nd petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 16649 of 2013. The name of the work was Kunnakkattumala Drinking Water Project during the year 1998-1999 under the People Planning Programme to provide drinking water to the people of the rural area. The project included construction of a large pond and a motor shed in the property in Survey No. 4491/2013, Block No. 8 of Chelamattom Village, surrendered by one Chummar Kurian, father of the 6th and 7th respondents in W. P. (C) No. 17365 of 2013 in favour of the Panchayat.

4. According to the petitioners, the said Chummar Kurian executed necessary documents in favour of the Koovappady Grama Panchayat, and accordingly, the beneficiary committee has constructed the pond and pump house and purchased a 20 HP motor. It is also the case of the petitioners that work was executed according to the agreement. The electric motor and accessories were purchased from Agro Industries Corporation, a State Government undertaking. According to the petitioners, the Panchayat has availed the service of the 8th petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 17365 of 2013, considering his technical expertise.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the property relinquished by late Chummar Kurian in favour of the Panchayat has been trespassed by the 5th respondent, who purchased the property from respondents 6 and 7, legal heirs of late Chummar Kurian, and destructed the pond and pump house. According to the petitioners, the said property was illegally added with the private property of the 5th respondent with the consent and active support of respondents 6 and 7. The 5th respondent has obstructed the way into the property and has constructed an industrial unit in the property, which according to the petitioners, was with the support of the Police, Revenue authorities and other instrumentalities of the State.

6. Anyhow, the case projected by the petitioners is that the work was completed in the year 2009 itself, and thereafter, it was under the control of the Panchayat. It is further submitted that since criminal trespass was committed by respondents 5 to 7, the Convenor of the Committee addressed the Police to take action against the culprits who have stolen the valuable articles and destroyed the public property evident from Ext. P1 complaint. The Panchayat also made Ext. P2 complaint before the Police alleging criminal trespass on the part of respondents 5 to 7.

7. On the basis of the same, Perumbavoor Police registered Crime No. 63 of 2008 and after investigation, Ext. P4 charge sheet was submitted. In Ext. P4, it is