Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vidya Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Panchayat ... on 11 September, 2013
Bench: Shri Narayan Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 2965 of 2006
Petitioner :- Smt. Vidya Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Panchayat Raj & 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Rathore
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Heard Mr.Mahendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.5.2006, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sultanpur, whereby the petitioner has been held liable to surcharge for the misappropriation of government fund amounting to Rs.31,500/- as well as the interest accrued thereon at the rate of 18 per cent from 95-96 to 2005-06 amounting to Rs.62,570/-. Thus the total amount for which the petitioner has been held liable to surcharge as Rs.93,870/-.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a Committee constituted with the Chief Development Officer, District Panchayat Raj Officer as well as the Block Development Officer including the Gram Pradhan concerned for selection of beneficiary for allotment of Indira Awas, but except the petitioner none has been held responsible for any such illegality for which the petitioner has been held liable. He further points out that the allegation relates to the year 1994-95 for misappropriation of fund when the petitioner was holding the office of Pradhan and from the order impugned it is itself clear that the spot inspection was made on 5th of May, 2006, when such a illegality was reported, whereas Section 27 of the U.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 forbids to hold liable after expirty of ten years from the date of occurrence of such misappropriation of fund. He also drew the attention of this courts towards Section 27 of the Act, which is extracted below:-
"27.Surcharge.-(1) Every Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a [Gram Panchayat] every member of a [Gram Panchayat] or of a Joint Committee or any other committee constituted under this Act and every Sarpanch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Panch of a Nayaya Panchayat shall be liable to surcharge for the loss, waste or misapplication of money or property [belonging to the Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat] as the case may be, if such loss, waste or misapplication is direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct while he was such Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, member, Sarpanch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Panch:
Provided that such liability shall cease to exist after the expiration of ten years from the occurrence of such loss, waste or misapplication, or five years from the date on which the person liable ceases to hold his office, whichever is later.
(2) The prescribed authority shall fix the amount of the surcharge according to the procedure that may be prescribed and shall certify the amount to the Collector who shall, on being satisfied that the amount is due, realise it, as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
(3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority fixing the amount of surcharge may, within thirty days of such order, appeal against the order to the State Government or such other appellate authority as may be prescribed.
(4) Where no proceeding for fixation and realisation of surcharge as specified in sub-section (2) is taken, the State Government may institute a suit for compensation for such loss, waste or misapplication, against the person liable for the same]
I examined the facts of the present case in light of the provisions of the Act, quoted above, and find that the impugned action is barred by time. Therefore, the same is unsustainable. Hence the order impugned is quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 11.9.2013
Banswar
