- (1.) R. S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. The only issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ ofcertiorari to quash an order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Azamgarh, by which recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as a consequence of public revenues, instead of being deposited in the treasury, being retained by him. The order of the District Magistrate is dated 19 January 1988 and is appended at Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The counter-affidavit of the State explains a slight error in the amount mentioned in the recovery order which instead of Rs. 10, 131. 50 ought to read as 11, 414. 84.
(2.) NO reply has been given to the counter-affidavit by the petitioner though he had received it on 16th June, 1992. Likewise, when the petitioner was asked to explain the matter relating to retaining the public revenues in his capacity as an Ameen, the counter-affidavit submits that he evaded the opportunity. The allegation against the petitioner is that during the course of his duties as a Collection Ameen between 1969-72, he em-bazzled revenue collected from the tenure-holders from Tbhsil Sagari and lehsil Phool-pur. The petitioner was a temporary Ameen. His services were terminated. The petitioner contends that a First Information Report instead of seeing a charge-sheet in an appropriate Court saw a final report and that after thirteen years an audit report was made and the amount al leged to be outstanding against him is being recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) THE Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter as the audit report is the subject-matter of scrutiny by the Account ant General, Uttar Pradesh. THE petitioner himself has appended a certificate from the District Magistrate referring to the report of the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The Court is of the opinion that irregularities in fiscal and financial matters cannot be hurried and the statute of the limitation will not apply to irregularities committed by those who are obliged to handle finances of government depart ments, public bodies and corporations, whether private or public. Unaccounted money is money out of circulation beyond a planned budget and leads to a parallel economy. Those questioned in the matter relating to having dealt with public finances and not being able to account for it or having arranged to spend it by deviating from settled norms of expenditure, cannot escape audit. Otherwise, if they do it would be an attempt to put a lid on such ir regularities being questioned. It is true that nothing succeeds like the success of suc ceeding, but whenever matters do surface the responsibility to explain will always be there. These are not matters in which the Court ought to interfere.;