HAMSA Vs. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Sec. 295(13) of the Kerala Municipality Act,1994 against the order dtd. 30/7/2022 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Manjeri in OP (Local Fund Audit) 139 of 2018.

(2.) The appellant was working as Junior Health Inspector, Grade-I during the period from 26/5/2011 to 12/1/2015 in Tirur Municipality. During the year 2013 - 14, he was in charge of the implementation of a project namely 'Vridhajanaparipalanam', meant for testing eye and prescribing medicines and spectacles for old age citizens. In 2015, he was transferred to Pala Municipality. While so, he received a surcharge notice dtd. 4/8/2016 issued by the Director of Local Fund Audit, based on the audit report of the Deputy Director, Municipal Audit, Tirur. As per the audit report, while he was in Tirur Municipality he had spent a sum of Rs. 2,67,100.00 without obtaining prior permission from the Government on the aforesaid project. In the notice he was directed to remit Rs. 2,67,100.00 to Tirur Municipality as loss caused due to excess payment made during the implementation of the above project. He had given a detailed reply on 25/8/2016 to the above notice. The above project was prepared by the Municipal Council and approved by the District Planning Board. Approval of the District Planning Board was obtained by Planning Sec. of the Municipality through its Secretary. Though it was approved for the year 2011 - 2012, it was not implemented. In 2014, it was undertaken as a spill over project of the year 2013 - 2014. According to the appellant, he was only implementing the project as directed by the Secretary of the Municipality. He would also contend that the audit was conducted in his absence and no notice as required under Sec. 11(1)(b) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, (In short, KLFA Act) was issued to him. In the impugned order, the District Judge failed to appreciate these aspects. Therefore, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Manjeri and to allow the OP (LFA).

(3.) Now the point that arise for consideration is the following :-