IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 12698 of 2009(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, L.D.CLERK, MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENRAL (AUDIT) THRISSUR. 2. THE MUNSIFF, MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12698/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 1.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12698/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an L.D.Clerk in the Subordinate Judicial Department and is currently posted in the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings issued by the Munsiff Court requiring him to refund a sum of Rs.19,685/- stated to be the excess pay and allowance drawn and disbursed to him. It is further stated therein that increment for the period from 8.3.2001 to 30.9.2008 was illegally granted to him. Ext.P1 has been challenged on various grounds. One of them is that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P1 order was passed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It seems that Ext.P1 was issued on the basis of audit objection. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner was not heard on the audit objection before order of refund was passed. Ext.P1 shall therefore, stand set aside. The audit objection in relation to the petitioner and referred to in Ext.P1 shall be communicated to him within two months from W.P.(C).12698/09 2 the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He shall be given an opportunity of filing his objections thereto and fresh order shall be passed by the 2nd respondent, after hearing the petitioner. Any recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 shall abide by the order to be passed by the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs