A. SAHADEVAN Vs. M. MUTHURAJ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE AUDITOR OF THE KILCHETTIPATTU PANCHAYAT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, arising out of O.P. No. 4 of 1971 and O.P. No. 53 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore, involve common questions of law.

(2.) IN C.M.A. No. 475 of 1971, the appellant, a former President of the Kizhchettipattu Panchayat Board, was surcharged by the Auditor, by his order dated 30th September, 1970 a sum of Rs. 649 -71P. on the ground the appellant had not spent the entire sum of Rs. 3,089 -15P. drawn by him from the Panchayat funds for road work, but had spent only Rs. 2,439 -44P. and consequently, the appellant had to make good the loss of Rs. 649 -71P. caused to the Panchayat. In C.M.A. No. 476 of 1971, the appellant, who was the President of Ammoor Panchayat from 1958 to 1965, was surcharged by the Auditor a sum of Rs. 715 -73P by his order dated 28th June, 1970 on the ground the appellant had not brought into account the usufructs of some tamarind trees belonging to the Panchayat which had been taken on lease by him, and further, had also drawn moneys for purchase of cement which was subsequently found to have been not utilised for the Panchayat. Both the appellants filed applications before the District Judge, under Rule 6 (1) (a) of the Surcharge and Disallowance Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under Section 178 (2) of the Madras Panchayats Act and prayed for the surcharge order being set aside. Apart from contending, in their respective applications that the surcharge order was unsustainable on facts, the appellants also contended the surcharge proceedings were barred by limitation. The learned District Judge overruled both the objections and sustained the order of surcharge. In these appeals, the appellants challenge the order of surcharge and the order of the learned District Judge, only on the ground of limitation.

(3.) ARGUING contra, Mr. G. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the Government contends that the Legislature has specifically made provision for Rules relating to the powers of Auditors in the matter of surcharge under the Act and the Rules are a complete Code in themselves in so far as surcharge proceedings are concerned, and it is only those Rules which would govern the rights of parties in respect of orders of surcharge and recovery of disallowed amounts. To appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to make reference to Section 178 of the Act and relevant portions therein, since it is under that provision the Government have been conferred powers by the Legislature to frame Rules on various matters. Sub -section (1) of Section 178 is worded as follows: