IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 988 of 2009(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V. VIDYAN KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO PULLAZHY, THRISSUR 680 012. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR MALAPPURAM LOCAL FUND AUDIT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. NANNAMMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANNAMMUKKU. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 988 of 2009-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service as Secretary of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat on 31.5.2002. He was working in the said Panchayat from December 1998 to 2001. The Local Fund Audit conducted audit for various years from 1997-98 to 2001-02. It appears that they had pointed out various irregularities during the period in which the petitioner was functioning as Secretary and the audit objections were communicated to the petitioner. Rejecting his reply, sur-charge certificates have been issued as per Exts.P5 and P6. Ext.P4 is the order by which the Director, Local Fund Audit finalised the proceedings. By filing Ext.P7, the petitioner has again requested the second respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the specific objections raised therein. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he cannot be saddled with liability in the matter and the objections raised by him have not been considered in the correct perspective. Since Ext.P7 has been submitted before the second WPC 988/2009 2 respondent, it is up to the second respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 after hearing the petitioner and after perusing the relevant records and if necessary, by hearing the 4th respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Any recovery against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4, will be kept in abeyance till the matter is finally decided by the second respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/