RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga, under sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the kurnatka Village Panchayat and Local boards Act, 1959 (the Act' for short) as also the order of the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, dismissing the appeal presented by the petitioner under Section 183 of the Act. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are these: During the period commencing from 26th November 1972 to the 10th April 1974 the petitioner was working as a Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board, Afzalpur, gulbarga district. He was a Block Development officer in the service of the State government, who had been deputed and appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the taluk Development Board. He was re-transferred as Block Development Officer. He retired from service from 1-7-1977. On 28th november 1978 a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 182 (2) of the Act calling upon him to give his explanation for the allegation that he had either misappropriated or mis-utilised the funds of the taluk Development Board amounting to Rs. 3,13,243. 43 Ps. The petitioner submitted his reply on 2-1-1979 (Annexure-B) The petitioner strongly refuted the allegation that he has mis-appropriated or mis-utilised any part of the amount. He said there might have been some irregularities, but there was absolutely no truth in the allegation that any amount had been misappropriated or misutilised by the petitioner. He specifically stated that the period during which he had incurred several expenditures was a period during which the area was affected by the worst drought and instructions had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner that there should be no delay in carrying out any work for incurring any expenditure for the benefit of the people on technical grounds and the whole object with which he and other officers should work was to give relief to the people affected by the drought. He also stated that he along with (he Tahsildar and the Assistant engineer had worked day and night and had rendered service to the people and it was unfortunate that the petitioner has been subjected to such serious allegations though he had rendered yeomen service during the drought period, ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the Divisional Commissioner proceeded to pass the order dated 15-1-1979 rejecting the explanation of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,13,243. 43, Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, gulbarga under Section 183 of the Act. The learned Civil judge considered that the divisional Commissioner had passed orders in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Act after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation and the order of the Divisional commissioner was a speaking order and therefore there was no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 4 ) SRI Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions:- (1) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it was obligatory for the Divisional Commissioner to have held an enquiry and as he passed the order without holding any such enquiry, the order was liable to be set aside. (2) Sub-section (3) of Section 182 of the act requires the Divisional Commissioner to give reasons in respect of each of the charges and in the present case he has not assigned reason for any of the charges and therefore the order is illegal. (3) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was obligatory on the part of the learned civil Judge to have called upon the divisional Commissioner to adduce evidence and the dismis. sal of the appeal without holding such enquiry was illegal. (4) The learned Civil Judge ought to have set aside the order of the Divisional commissioner, as the Divisional Commissioner had failed to hold an enquiry as required under sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Act and he had failed to record reasons in respect of each of the items in respect of which liability was fixed against the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary in the first instance to set out the provisions of Sections 182 and 183 of the Act. They read:-"182, Disallowance by Government Auditor and order by Commissioner:- (1) The government auditor shall disallow every item of payment contrary to law and report the same to the Commissioner with particulars as regards the person making or authorising the making of such payment. (2) The Commissioner may, on the report of the auditor or on his own motion and after taking the explanation of the person concerned or making such further enquiry as he may consider necessary, charge any person responsible therefore the amount disallowed under sub-section (1) or the amount of any deficiency or loss caused by the negligence or misconduct of such person or any sum received which ought to have been, but is not brought into account by such person, and shall, in every such case, certify the amount due from such person. (3) The Commissioner shall in writing state the reasons for his decision in respect of every charge and send a copy thereof to the person against whom it is made. 183. Appeal against the order: Any person aggrieved by the order of the commissioner under Section 182 may, wiihin thirty days of I he receipt by him of a copy of the decision of the Commissioner, either - (a) apply to the Civil Coin! having jurisdiction to set aside such order; and the court alter taking such evidence as it considers necessary, may confirm, modify or remit such charge, and make such orders as to costs as it deems proper in the circumstances; or (b) in lieu of such application, appeal to the Government which shall pass such orders as it think fit'. " ( 6 ) AS can be seen from sub-section (1) of section 182 of the Act, it requires the government Auditor to disallow every item of payment made contrary to law, and to make a repot t to the Divisional Commissioner with particulars as regards the person making or authorising the making of such payment contrary to law. Sub-section (2) of section 182 of the Act prescribes the procedure for taking further action on the basis of the audit report. Sub-section (2) of section 182 of the Act prescribes the procedure for taking further action on the basis of the audit report. It provides that she commissioner on the basis of the report or even suo moto call for the explanation of the person concerned or make such further enquiry as he might consider necessary, charge any person responsible for the amount disallowed and issue a certificate to the effect that the amount is due from such person. Sub-section (3) of Section 182 of the act makes it obligatory for the Divisional commissioner to record reasons for the decision in respect of every charge and to send a copy thereof to the person concerned. Section 183 of the Act gives a right of appeal to the person aggrieved by the order of the divisional Commissioner made under section 182 of the Act either to the Civil court or to the State Government. Section 183 (a) provides that whenever an appeal is filed before the civil court, it should proceed to decide the case after taking such evidence as it considers necessary and may confirm, modify or remit such charge. After the order made under Section 182 of the Act becomes final either by its confirmation or modification by the order of the Civil Court under Section 183 of the Act or by its not being challenged before the Civil Court or the Government under Section 183, Section 184 of the Act provides for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. ( 7 ) IT is true that sub-section (2) of Section 182 provides that the Commissioner may proceed to pass orders alter taking explanation of the person concerned or making such further enquiry as he may consider necessary. The clear meaning of the provision is that if in a given case the matter is simple and it can be decided on consideration of the explanation offered by the official concerned, the Divisional commissioner can proceed to pass the final orders. To illustrate, if in a given case the drawing of the amount for any particular purpose is not disputed and it was not disputed that it was not spent for the purpose, there is nothing further to enquire. But there might be cases in which it is not possible to fix the responsibility on the person concerned without recording evidence. To illustrate, if in a given case the drawing of the amount for any particular purpose is not disputed and it was not disputed that it was not spent for the purpose, there is nothing further to enquire. But there might be cases in which it is not possible to fix the responsibility on the person concerned without recording evidence. In such cases, it is obligatory on the part of the Divisional Commissioner to hold an enquiry and record a finding on the basis of the evidence so recorded. The fact that the Section provides that the Commissioner may make such further enquiry as he may consider necessary, only means, he has the power to hold further enquiry if it becomes necessary and not that even if in a given case no liability can be fixed without holding further enquiry he can still dispense with the holding of enquiry. The Section cannot be interpreted as giving a discretion to the Divisional Commissioner either to hold an enquiry or not to hold an enquiry even if the situation demands the holding of an enquiry. Such would not be the intention of the Legislature. On the other hand, the power conferred to hold enquiry under the section is coupled with the duty to hold inquiry if the facts and circumstances of a given case calls for an inquiry. The provisions of sub-section (3) reinforces the above construction of sub-section (2), for sub-section (3) requires the Divisional commissioner to state in writing the reasons for his decision in respect of every charge. When a particular charge is made and it is refuted in the explanation furnished by the person concerned in the nature of things, it is not possible to give reasons for fixing the liability on the person concerned without recording evidence, it makes the holding of enquiry obligatory. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, under Section 183 (a) also the power is conferred on the Civil Court to decide an application presented to it for setting aside the order made by the divisional Commissioner under Section 182 and decide the matter after taking such evidence as it considers necessary. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, under Section 183 (a) also the power is conferred on the Civil Court to decide an application presented to it for setting aside the order made by the divisional Commissioner under Section 182 and decide the matter after taking such evidence as it considers necessary. Therefore, even under this provision if the evidence in support of the charge has been recorded in full in an enquiry held by the divisional Commissioner under Section 182 of the Act, it might not be necessary for the civil Court to record evidence and it can decide as to whether the finding recorded by the Divisional Commissioner was based on the evidence on record, but if in a given case the Civil Court finds that no evidence was recorded before fixing the liability and no reasons were given or the entire evidence available has not been recorded, it is the duty of the Civil Court to call upon the parties to adduce evidence and to decide the matter only after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above discussion regarding the scope and content of the provisions of Sections 182 and 183, I shall now proceed to consider the facts of this case. The notice was given to the petitioner under Section 182 (2) on 28-11-1978 (Annexure-A ). It reads:- "government of Karnataka no. DEV. TDB. Office of the 187/78-79 Divisional Commissioner, gulbarga R. S. 585102. Dated 28-11-78. NOTICE sub:- Audit report on the account of taluk Development Board Afzalpur for the year 1-4-71 to 31-3-1974. Ref:- Govt. letter No. RDC. 35. BDB. 78 dated 12-4-78. It is observed by the Assistant controller Local Audit Circle, Gulbarga, through his report No. 3732- air-GUL-74-75 dated 24-12-74 that during the tenur of Shri. T. Ramachandra former Block Development Officer and the Chief Executive Officer, TDB, afzalpur w. e. f. 26-11-1972 to 10-4-74, has committed grave irregularities including misappropriation of amount on the basis of self cheques drawn in connection with food distribution during the drought period and the amount so drawn on D. C. Bills without counter signature of the controlling authority under the people housing Programme and misappropriation of TDB funds of Rs. 3,13,243. 43 which were noticed during the course of audit of the account of TDB, Afzalpur. 3,13,243. 43 which were noticed during the course of audit of the account of TDB, Afzalpur. The details of cases irregularities observed in the expenditure of money due to the Taluk Board and loss of money and other property referred to in clause (b) and (c) of Section 18 (i) of the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 proposed amount for recovery by the assistant Controller local Audit Circle, gulbarga as detailed below: