IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : of 2001 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.8015 of 2001 O R D E R: The petitioner is questioning Surcharge Certificate issued against him by the 4th respondent in S.C.L.F.No.391, dated 20-11-1997. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he worked as a Sarpanch of Atmakur Gram Panchayat for the period from 01-04-1988 to 31-03-1993. After expiry of the term, he was continued as a Special Officer till 24-10-1995, and thereafter, he handed over charge to the newly elected Sarpanch. It is alleged that during the audit, it was noticed that there was discrepancy to the extent of works carry out under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna Proagramme to a tune of Rs.16,728/- and the said audit report for the year 1991 is said to have been sent to Gram Panchayat, Atmakur under the auditor’s covering letter, dated 31-01-1994 inviting comments and replies. 3. The petitioner alleges that thereafter, he did not receive either any intimation or any notice and he only came to know the impugned Surcharge Certificate and therefore has approached this Court complaining of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. A counter-affidavit and a vacate stay petition are filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. The relevant portion of which will be discussed hereafter. 5. This Court while admitting the writ petition had suspended the impugned certificate by order dated 24-04-2001 and the said interim order is in force. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 7. Para-3 of the impugned Surcharge Certification states that a warning letter of local funds office, dated 24-07-1997, addressed to the petitioner, was sent to him but he refused to accept the same. Therefore, a presumption of service is drawn against him and consequently the Surcharge Certificate is issued. 8. However, para-5 of the counter affidavit states that the said warning letter, dated 24-07-1997 was sent to the petitioner though a registered post with acknowledgment due advising him to rectify the irregularities committed. But the said registered letter returned un- served with an endorsement of the postal authorities that the addressee was absent on 19-08-1997, 20-08-1997 and 21-08-1997 respectively and it specifically further records that the said letter of 24-07-1997 remained un-served and was, in fact, returned unserved. 9. In view of the said averment, the presumption drawn against the petitioner in the impugned order is without any basis and it has to be held that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and as such it is not enforceable. 10. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly, with liberty to the respondents to put the petitioner to notice and hearing and then pass appropriate reasoned order, if they so desire to proceed further in the matter. 11. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ 03-12-2008 KVR