THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22646 of 2004 June 29, 2010 Between: L.Gangi Reddy, S/o.Late Gangi Reddy … Petitioner And The District Collector (P.W.), Kadapa District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22646 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was Sarpanch/Executive Authority of Peddanapadu Village of Yerraguntla Mandal in Kadapa District during the period from 01.4.1990 to 31.3.1990. Audit of the accounts for the period from 01.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 under Section 217(2) of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, and Rule 5 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.569, dated 13.5.1965, was conducted by the Audit Officer, Local Fund, Kadapa. On the ground that petitioner did not submit vouchers, bills, stock reports, copies of technical sanction, administrative sanction and M-Books, the Audit Officer found that an amount of Rs.25,048/- is not accounted for. Audit report being MF No.311, dated 20.5.1991, was sent to petitioner seeking reply. Petitioner did not submit reply. Therefore, by a communication, “surcharge confirmation” bearing S.C.L.F.No.659, dated 07.1.1998, the Audit Officer held the petitioner responsible for the loss of Rs.25,048/- to Gram Panchayat. He was asked to pay the amount. Feeling aggrieved by “surcharge confirmation”, petitioner preferred appeal to second respondent. The same was confirmed by impugned order dated 26.4.2004. Assailing the same, instant writ petition is filed. Petitioner contends that he has handed over all the records to fifth respondent and that he has not caused any loss to Gram Panchayat. Fourth respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that if the records were handed over to fifth respondent, they ought to have been produced before the Audit Officer. They were not produced. When the audit report was sent, petitioner did not submit any explanation taking such a plea and, therefore, the Audit Officer confirmed the surcharge. The counsel for petitioner submits that the decision arrived at by the third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent is not based on any record and that petitioner has handed over all the records to fifth respondent. He also relies on the affidavit of one Tapa Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin, who has filed affidavit as third party supporting the case of petitioner, to the effect the records were handed over to him. These contentions are refuted by the Assistant Government pleader for Panchayat Raj. Though notice is served, none appears for third respondent, namely, the Group Executive Officer of Peddanapadu Village. The affidavit of Tapa Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin was notarized on 09.8.2004 and the writ petition was filed on 07.12.2004. Therefore, it is very suspicious and appears to have been obtained to suit the petitioner’s case that he handed over the records. Even otherwise as rightly contended by the respondents if the then Village Development Officer was having the custody of records, he ought to have produced the same before the Audit Officer, who conducted audit and found that there are no records and vouchers to justify the expenditure towards construction of canal from Gangamma Devalam to Polu Bali Reddy house, laying of stone and drainage from Ramaswamy Devalam to Boreddy Veerareddy house, and laying of stone from Varasureddy Kondareddy house to A.Jayarami Reddy house, as pointed out in the surcharge confirmation. Secondly, if the petitioner really handed over records to the then Village Development Officer, nothing prevented him to submit reply to the Audit Officer, Local Fund, when the audit report was sent calling for his reply. Furthermore, the case turns on the questions of fact and when the primary authority and appellate authority have considered the records and arrived at finding, in a writ petition those findings cannot be interfered with. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 29, 2010 YS