EXAMINER OF LOCAL ACCOUNTS Vs. SITARAM RUNGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramratna Singh and Anwar Ahmad, JJ. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these: The plaintiff respondent was the Vice Chairman of the Chaibassa Municipality from the 10th November, 1945 to 31st January, 1951. The accounts of the Municipality were audited some times after that under the Bihar and Orissa Local Fund Audit Act, 1925 (Bihar and Orissa Act 11 of 1925). The Auditor submitted a report (Ext. B) to the Examiner of Local Accounts, Bihar, at Ranchi (Appellant No. 1) stating that the Municipality had suffered a loss of Rs. 961/- and odd being arrears of taxes due, which became time barred on account of the negligence of the plaintiff while he was acting as Vice Chairman. The Examiner of Local Accounts served a notice (Ext. B/2) on him under Section 9(2)(b) of the said Act to show cause within a month as to why the said amount should not be recovered from him and credited to the Chaibassa Municipality Fund. The plaintiff respondent showed cause in writing through a letter dated the 22nd June, 1951 (Ext. B/l). The relevant portion of this document reads as follows: That out of the total amount of Rs. 961/8/6 mentioned above a sum of Rs. 151/2/9 has already been realised and credited to Municipal fund and the balance is also being gradually realised. That in this connection it may be noted that these amounts are accumulation of several years and realisation are being made from back dues. It would appear from the Resolutions of the meetings and other records that proper warning was given to the Tax Daroga and Collecting Sarkars for realisation and there has been no negligence whatsoever on my part. I would therefore, request that the surcharge notice issued against me may kindly be withdrawn. The cause shown by the plaintiff-respondent was rejected by the Examiner of Local Accounts and then the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the State Government under Section 11 of the said Act. With reference to the appeal, the Examiner of Local Accounts submitted to the State Government that out of Rs. 961/- and odd, and sum of Rs. 388/8/- had been realised by the end of October, 1955. In August, 1957, the Minister-In-charge of the Local Self Government, Bihar passed the following order on the plaintiff's petition of appeal dated the 28th November, 1954: Shri S.R. Rungta, Ex-Vice-Chairman of Chaibassa Municipality has preferred an appeal against surcharge-order No. 82 of 1954-55 for recovery of Rs. 961/8/6 lost by the Board on account of time barred taxes. He has contended that he warned the Tax Daroga and the Collecting Sarkars for realisation of the dues and, if no coercive measures were taken, it was because of the fact that there was hardly any chance of success of legal processes. The function of an executive head does not cease in merely warning the Tax Daroga and the Collecting Sarkars, but on seeing that no loss is caused to the Municipal fund by the negligence on the part of his subordinates, which he has, sufficiently, been empowered to deal with. It is also hardly tenable to argue that the dues could not have been realised by adhering to the coercive measures. He should have implemented the measures provided for in the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 for the realisation of the taxes within the period, they have not become time-barred. The appeal, is, therefore, disallowed with the modification that the surcharge amount of Rs. 961/8/6 is reduced by Rs. 415/11/- which has since been realised. Thereafter the Examiner of Local Accounts issued requisition to the Collector of Singhbhum at Chaibassa (appellant No. 2) for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 545/13/9. A certificate proceeding was started thereafter at Chaibassa. The plaintiff preferred an objection before the Certificate Officer under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, but the same was rejected; and an appeal from the order of rejection was disallowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted.

(2.) The learned Munsif found that major portion of Rs. 545/- and odd had since been realised and he found that the plaintiff was liable to pay only the balance amount of Rs. 187/11/-; and the suit was decreed in part accordingly. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and the learned Subordinate Judge of Chaibassa allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in full. He found that there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff on account of which the Chaibassa Municipality suffered loss in respect of the arrears of taxes which had become time barred; but at the same time he also found that the aforesaid Act of 1925 was not applicable in the District of Singhbhum during the relevant period and, therefore, the order of surcharge by the Examiner of Local Accounts and the order on appeal by the State Government were invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. He also took the view that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred, inasmuch as the plaintiff had not been given an opportunity to be heard by the Examiner of Local Accounts or by the appellate authority. Hence, the defendants of the suit preferred this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, who appeared for the appellants, did not challenge the findings of the trial court. The appellants are also satisfied with the findings that the plaintiff respondent is liable to pay only Rs. 187/11/- after realisation of the remaining amount out of the total amount for which the proceeding had been started. But Mr. Sinha challenged two findings of the lower appellate court on account of which the suit has been decreed in full by that court. These two findings are: (1). The Act of 1925 was not applicable to Chaibassa during the relevant period. (2). Principle of natural justice has been violated, inasmuch as the plaintiff had not been given proper opportunity to be heard by the Examiner of Local Accounts or by the Appellate authority.