M THANGARAJAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tanjore in C.M.A.No.7/2000 confirming the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in O.P.No.128/95.

(2.) The revision petitioner was working as the Executive Officer, between 21.3.1982 and 8.3.1993 at Arulmighu Brahmapureeswarar Temple, Punnaiyur. For the purpose of the temple festival on 28.3.1993, the Government had not provided fund in time, which they used to provide as Dastic Allowance, despite the request made by the Executive Officer of the temple. The Executive Officer and the governing body of the temple viz., Trustees, had decided to obtain a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deposit amount made by the temple in the bank. In pursuance of the decision taken by the governing body of the temple, informing the authorities concerned and in anticipation of the approval, the Executive Officer/revision petitioner, obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 23.3.1983 and celebrated the festival on 28.3.1983.

(3.) When the temple accounts were audited by the Audit Department, they had noticed the irregularity committed by the Executive Officer, viz., the revision petitioner, in obtaining a loan, that too, without the prior permission of the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., thereby causing a loss of Rs.4,485.35 by way of interest. Therefore, the audit department had recommended for departmental proceedings, for the irregularity committed by the then Executive Officer of the temple viz., the revision petitioner. In pursuance of the audit report, notice was issued to the Executive Officer, directing him to make good the loss sustained by the temple, in view of the loan obtained by him, thereby depriving the interest to the temple to the tune of Rs.4,485.35. The Executive Officer had failed to pay the amount and thereafter, a surcharge proceedings was initiated and in R.C.No.22421/87/D3, the concerned authority had passed a surcharge order on 22.11.1974, directing him to pay the amount due to the temple, which is estimated as loss, because of the irregularity committed by the Executive Officer.