Officials accountable for tax payers money: Madras High Court

CHENNAI: Holding that the funds of tax payers shall be utilised for public purposes and officials and public servants are accountable not only to the State but also to the public at large, the Madras High Court has ordered the recovery of Rs 33.53 lakh from the Executive Officer of Jalakandapuram Town Panchayat in Salem district.

Justice S M Subramaniam gave the directive while passing orders on a writ petition from K Balachandran, vice-chairman of Panamarathupatti Grade I Town Panchayat, on June 20.

The petition prayed for a directive to the authorities concerned to recover the sum from P K Madhaiyan and to take necessary action against him for having caused the huge loss to the town panchayat.
Petitioner’s counsel K Selvaraj alleged that Madhaiyan had misappropriated the sum from town panchayat funds.

After perusing the records, the judge found that counsel had made out a clear case that the financial loss caused to the town panchayat was to be recovered by the authorities from the person, who was responsible for the loss. Government officials are public officials and the custodian of public funds, which are to be maintained and protected prudently and diligently. In the event of any financial loss, the competent officials must recover the same from the persons concerned, without any delay.

In the event of not effecting recovery by such officials, then the State should initiate appropriate action against the superiors and recover the same from their salary. Not protecting the funds of the State exchequer is also a misconduct. If higher officials fail to initiate appropriate action for the recovery of the loss, then, they are also certainly liable for prosecution for their negligence and dereliction of duty. The accountability, integrity and honesty of these officials are to be ensured only through their actions, the judge said.

In the present case, proof has been filed by counsel showing there is a huge loss of Rs 33.53 lakh to the town panchayat and Madhaiyan is responsible for the same. This apart, the case has been referred to the vigilance department. However, initiation of disciplinary action under the penal provisions are unconnected with the recovery of the public money from the officials concerned. Two fold actions are certainly permissible. If an employee made a financial loss, the first action would be to recover the loss.

The second action would be to initiate disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution if necessary. Mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings or criminal case, as contended by Madhaiyan, would not preclude the authorities from recovering the loss occurred, the Bench said.