THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 20039 of 2009 Oral order: The petitioner is an ex-Sarpanch of Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat. He was elected as Sarpanch for the period from 1995 to 2001. After expiry of his term, he was served with eight surcharge notices. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation to the said notices in detail supported by necessary bills. However, respondent No.3, namely the District Audit Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, again issued another surcharge notice. Questioning the said surcharge notices, the petitioner states that he preferred appeal before respondent No.1, namely the Government on 15.02.2003, but no orders thereon had been passed. Now it is the case of the petitioners that based on the surcharge notices, the respondents are trying to recover the surcharge amount mentioned in the surcharge notices under the Revenue Recovery Act. Now questioning the said eight surcharge proceedings issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.3 filed counter stating that during the audit, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated the Gram Panchayat to the tune of Rs.62,479/- under various vouchers, allegedly paid towards purchase of bleaching materials, chemicals and supply of water. The petitioner further was found to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,17,878/-, and he failed to produce the vouchers for the said amount nor did he give proper explanation. The petitioner was also found to have not deducted an amount Rs. 2,024/- towards sale tax and income tax from bill amount of Rs.62,484/- relating to purchase of G.I. pipes, he made excess payment of Rs.1,996/- to a Contractor, and he did not furnish any voucher for payment of R.1,784/- made to the Contractor. The petitioner also failed to furnish details of sub- vouchers/bills with respect to labour charges of Rs.750/- and Rs. 4,031/- towards Telephone charges. Thus, in all, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated an mount of Rs.2,71,470/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued special letter dated 15.03.1999, but there was no response to the same. As the petitioner did not respond, he was issued Surcharge Certificates dated 10.12.2002, and was called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 2,71,470/- within 60 days, but the petitioner having received the said surcharge notices did not make the payment. He further stated that against the impugned surcharge notices, the petitioner had remedy of appeal under Rule 9(5)(a) of A.P. State Audit Rules, 2000, issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 130, dated 08.09.2000, the petitioner did not avail the remedy and instead filed the present writ petition. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for the respondent. Though the petitioner claims that he has preferred appeal against the impugned surcharge notices before respondent No.1, the same is denied by the respondents, and it I contended by them that the petitioner instead of preferring appeal has filed the writ petition. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the stand taken by the respondents in the counter, it is clear that respondent No.3 in the course of audit of the Gram Panchayat funds, found that the petitioner had misappropriated a total amount of Rs. 2,71,470/- under different heads. Though the petitioner was given surcharge notices, calling upon him to submit explanation and give account of the funds, the fact remains, the petitioner is said to have not given proper explanation nor substantiated the accounts by producing vouchers/bills. The misappropriation alleged against the petitioner is that he is said to have raised bills without purchasing materials, made excess payments, and raised workers bills without employing them actually. As the petitioner is said to have not submitted explanation substantiated by proper proof, respondent No.3 issued Surcharge Certificates. The petitioner except stating that respondent No.3 did not consider the material produced by him, failed to say as to what is the material that he has produced before respondent No.3, and what he failed to consider. However, the counsel for the petitioner sought to produce certain bills before the Court contending that since the bills were not legible the petitioner did not produce the same before respondent No.3 to substantiate his case. This stand taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat during the relevant period, was duty bound to ensure that the funds of the Gram Panchayat are spent wisely and accounted for supported by vouchers/bills, but the petitioner, failed to substantiate and account for the expenditure incurred by him from the Gram Panchayat funds. Though the surcharge notices are issued in the year 2002, the petitioner filed the present writ petition after lapse of nearly seven years, without explaining as to why he kept quiet all these years. Though the petitioner claim that he has preferred appeal against the surcharge notices, the same is specifically denied by the respondents in the counter. Since the surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner attained finality, as the petitioner did not file any appeal, the respondents are justified in taking steps to recover the amounts mentioned in the Surcharge Certificates under the Revenue Recovery Act. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the surcharge notices impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 12th July, 2010 KSR