Uma Shanker Rai vs District Magistrate,Azamgarh & Ors.

R. S. Dhavan and VP. Goel, JJ.—The only issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ ofcertiorari to quash an order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Azamgarh, by which recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as a consequence of public revenues, instead of being deposited in the treasury, being retained by him. The order of the District Magistrate is dated 19 January 1988 and is appended at Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The counteraffidavit of the State explains a slight error in the amount mentioned in the recovery order which instead of Rs. 10, 131.50 ought to read as 11, 414.84.

No reply has been given to the counteraffidavit by the petitioner though he had received it on 16th June, 1992. Likewise, when the petitioner was asked to explain the matter relating to retaining the public revenues in his capacity as an Ameen, the counteraffidavit submits that he evaded the opportunity.

The allegation against the petitioner is that during the course of his duties as a Collection Ameen between 196972, he embazzled revenue collected from the tenureholders from Tbhsil Sagari and lehsil Phoolpur. The petitioner was a temporary Ameen. His services were terminated.

The petitioner contends that a First Information Report instead of seeing a chargesheet in an appropriate Court saw a final report and that after thirteen years an audit report was made and the amount alleged to be outstanding against him is being recovered as arrears of land revenue.

The Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter as the audit report is the subjectmatter of scrutiny by the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner himself has appended a certificate from the District Magistrate referring to the report of the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

The Court is of the opinion that irregularities in fiscal and financial matters cannot be hurried and the statute of the limitation will not apply to irregularities committed by those who are obliged to handle finances of government departments, public bodies and corporations, whether private or public. Unaccounted money is money out of circulation beyond a planned budget and leads to a parallel economy. Those questioned in the matter relating to having dealt with public finances and not being able to account for it or having arranged to spend it by deviating from settled norms of expenditure, cannot escape audit. Otherwise, if they do it would be an attempt to put a lid on such irregularities being questioned. It is true that nothing succeeds like the success of succeeding, but whenever matters do surface the responsibility to explain will always be there. These are not matters in which the Court ought to interfere.

The petition is misconceived and is, thus, dismissed.

The interim order of 2921988 is discharged.