T RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga, under sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Kurnatka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 (the Act' for short) as also the order of the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, dismissing the appeal presented by the petitioner under Section 183 of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are these: During the period commencing from 26th November 1972 to the 10th April 1974 the petitioner was working as a Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board, Afzalpur, Gulbarga district. He was a Block Development Officer in the service of the State Government, who had been deputed and appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board. He was re-transferred as Block Development Officer. He retired from service from 1-7-1977. On 28th November 1978 a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 182(2) of the Act calling upon him to give his explanation for the allegation that he had either misappropriated or mis-utilised the funds of the Taluk Development Board amounting to Rs. 3,13,243.43 Ps. The petitioner submitted his reply on 2-1-1979 (Annexure-B) The petitioner strongly refuted the allegation that he has mis-appropriated or mis-utilised any part of the amount. He said there might have been some irregularities, but there was absolutely no truth in the allegation that any amount had been misappropriated or misutilised by the petitioner. He specifically stated that the period during which he had incurred several expenditures was a period during which the area was affected by the worst drought and instructions had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner that there should be no delay in carrying out any work for incurring any expenditure for the benefit of the people on technical grounds and the whole object with which he and other officers should work was to give relief to the people affected by the drought. He also stated that he along with (he Tahsildar and the Assistant Engineer had worked day and night and had rendered service to the people and it was unfortunate that the petitioner has been subjected to such serious allegations though he had rendered yeomen service during the drought period,

(3.) Thereafter, the Divisional Commissioner proceeded to pass the order dated 15-1-1979 rejecting the explanation of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,13,243.43, Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Gulbarga under Section 183 of the Act. The learned Civil judge considered that the Divisional Commissioner had passed orders in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Act after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation and the order of the Divisional Commissioner was a speaking order and therefore there was no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has presented this petition.