THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2557 of 2005 Dt.29.04.2011 Between: S.Demudu ……..Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and four others ……..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2557 of 2005 O R D E R: The petitioner, the former Sarpanch of Chinamushidiwada Gram Panchayat, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam, assails the surcharge certificate dated 10.01.1996 issued against him by the Audit Officer, Local Fund, Visakhapatnam, confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 16.12.2004. Thereby, the petitioner was called upon to remit a sum of Rs.1,35,771.75ps to the Gram Panchayat. This Court, by order dated 16.02.2005, directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the amount due under the impugned orders. This direction was extended until further orders on 23.02.2005. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Chinamushidiwada Gram Panchayat in the elections held during the year 1988. After completion of his term, he handed over charge of the said post on 24.08.1994. While so, the impugned surcharge certificate dated 10.01.1996 reflects that basing upon the audit of the Gram Panchayat accounts during the year 1991, a letter dated 23.11.1995 was addressed to the Gram Panchayat to rectify the failure in respect of production of certain vouchers to account for the expenditure of Rs.1,35,771.75ps towards dustbins, dust carts, electrical goods and stationery. It is relevant to note that by the said date, the petitioner had already demitted office. There is thus no evidence of the said letter having been served upon the petitioner personally. However, as the irregularity pointed out in the said letter was not rectified, the impugned surcharge certificate was issued holding that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in drawing funds and incurring expenditure without proper documentation. The amount of Rs.1,35,771.75ps was accordingly surcharged on him and he was directed to credit the said amount to the account of the Gram Panchayat within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certificate. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, but the appellate authority by order dated 16.11.2004 confirmed the surcharge certificate dated 10.01.1996 and disallowed the appeal. The record pertaining to the case having been called for and perused, certain relevant facts emerge for the purpose of resolving this case. As stated supra, the petitioner was no longer in office by the time the letter dated 23.11.1995 was addressed by the Audit Officer to the Gram Panchayat calling for rectification of the defects/irregularities in the production of vouchers to account for certain expenditure. Though the surcharge proceedings could be instituted within five years from the date of completion of the audit as per the amendment of the rules under G.O.Ms.No.70, Panchayat Raj(SAM.I) Department, dated 07.02.1981, and the action initiated in the present case was within the said time, for the purpose of attaching liability upon the petitioner the authorities necessarily have to prove before this Court that he was put on notice of the objections raised in the letter dated 23.11.1995. The Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj fairly conceded that examination of the record reflects that there was no personal service of this notice upon the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity prior to the passing of the surcharge certificate dated 10.01.1996. This failure on the part of the primary authority was compounded by the fact that the appellate authority, the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, called for a report from the Director, State Audit, Andhra Pradesh, who submitted report dated 28.04.1999 which was relied upon by the appellate authority in his order dated 16.11.2004. This report dated 28.04.1999 was never disclosed or communicated to the petitioner. The order of the appellate authority based on such information collected behind the back of the petitioner therefore vitiates his consideration of the appeal. Viewed from any angle, the orders under challenge cannot be sustained as the same were issued in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the surcharge certificate dated 10.01.1996 and the appellate order dated 16.11.2004. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. Dt.29.04.2011 Rns