JUDGMENT : Murali Purushothaman, J. The petitioner retired from the service of the Guruvayur Devaswom on 31.05.2019 as First Grade Overseer. He is aggrieved by the denial of full pension and other retirement benefits due to him. 2. The petitioner passed the SSLC examination in March 1980 and a two-year National Trade Certificate (Electrician) course. He was appointed as General Workman in Guruvayur Devaswom, on 07.06.1985. He was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 19.06.2006 and his probation was declared on 19.08.2007. Later, he was promoted as Second Grade Overseer as per Ext. P3 proceedings dated 24.10.2007 and First Grade Overseer on 02.06.2009, as per Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent. The probation in the post of First Grade Overseer was also declared and he retired from the said post on 31.05.2019, on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. When the retirement benefits due to the petitioner were not disbursed for more than one year, he made queries and he was informed that the Kerala State Audit Department, Guruvayur Devaswom Audit, the 3rd respondent had vide Ext. P5 communication dated 23.05.2019 raised audit objection against the promotion granted to him as Second Grade Overseer since he did not possess the qualification of Diploma in Engineering as required under the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 (Regulations). To Ext. P5 audit objection, the Law Officer of the Devaswom submitted Ext. P6 report suggesting payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner in the lower cadre of Senior Technician/Senior Operator. By Ext. P7 proceedings issued by the Administrator, minimum pension was sanctioned to the petitioner and other retirement benefits were withheld pending clearance of audit objection. The petitioner submitted Ext. P8 request before the Administrator for disbursement of full pension and other retirement benefits. Later, on the basis of the proceedings dated 22.06.2023 (Ext. R3(d)) of the 3rd respondent, the retirement benefits of the petitioner were disbursed, however, in the lower cadre of Senior Technician/Senior Operator, instead of First Grade Overseer, from which post he retired. The petitioner states that he is entitled for retirement benefits in the post of First Grade Overseer and that the disbursement of retirement benefits in the lower cadre of Senior Technician/ Senior Operator is illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that the promotion granted to him in the years 2007 and 2009 cannot be varied on the basis of Ext. P5 audit objection. The audit objection evidenced by Ext. It is contended that the promotion granted to him in the years 2007 and 2009 cannot be varied on the basis of Ext. P5 audit objection. The audit objection evidenced by Ext. P5 has no legal sanctity and the promotion given years back cannot be unsettled. It is also contended that similarly situated persons have been promoted on the basis of same qualification and they have been favoured with all retirement benefits. It is further contended that the promotion granted to the petitioner cannot be varied and retirement benefits cannot be withheld or curtailed based on an audit objection raised behind his back. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to call for the records leading to Exts. P5 and P6 and quash the same to the extent they raise objection against the promotion of the petitioner as First Grade Overseer and Second Grade Overseer and withhold the full pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner. A direction is also sought to the respondents to sanction and disburse full pension and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is contended that the petitioner was not qualified for promotion to the post of Second Grade Overseer and First Grade Overseer and the objection raised in Ext. P5 is to be sustained. 5. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the audit of accounts of Guruvayur Devaswom is conducted on the basis of Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 ('Act' for short) and Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980 ('Rules' for short). When the service book of the petitioner was submitted to audit for pre-verification, irregularity in sanctioning promotion was found and objected to and by Ext. R3(a) letter the 3rd respondent directed the Devaswom to regulate the pay of the petitioner without considering the promotion to the post of Second Grade Overseer and First Grade Overseer. It is further stated that during the 34 years of service of the petitioner, his service book was furnished to audit for verification only twice, ie., in 2001 and 2018 and therefore there was delay in noticing the illegal promotions granted. It is further stated that the service book of the petitioner was thereafter furnished to audit for verification only on 08.05.2023. It is further stated that the service book of the petitioner was thereafter furnished to audit for verification only on 08.05.2023. The irregularities noticed during the verification of the service book were pointed out to the Administrator vide Ext. R3(a) letter dated 23.05.2019. It is stated that it is for the Devaswom to decide whether the petitioner can be promoted to vacancies which arose after 16.10.2015, after the amendment of Regulations and they have not responded to the 3rd respondent's communication vide Ext. R3 (d) in this regard. 6. Heard Sri. Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.K. Vipindas, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. V.K. Sunil, the learned senior Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent. 7. Chapter IV of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 deals with accounts and audit. Section 23 (2) provides that the accounts of the Devaswom shall be subject to concurrent audit. Section 24 provides that after completing the audit for any year of shorter period or for any transaction or series of transactions, as he deems fit, the auditor shall send a report to the Commissioner. Section 25 deals with contents of audit report and reads as follows: “25. Contents of audit report. - (1) The auditor shall specify in his report all cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or of failure to recover moneys or other property due to the Devaswom or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof, caused by neglect or misconduct. (2) The auditor shall also report on such other matter, relating to the accounts as may be prescribed, or on which the Commissioner may require him to report.” Section 26 of the Act deals with rectification of defects disclosed in audit and order of surcharge against Committee, etc. and reads as follows: “26. Rectification of defects disclosed in audit and order of surcharge against Committee, etc. - (1) The Commissioner shall send a copy of every audit report to the Committee and it shall be the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor and report the same to the Commissioner. and reads as follows: “26. Rectification of defects disclosed in audit and order of surcharge against Committee, etc. - (1) The Commissioner shall send a copy of every audit report to the Committee and it shall be the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor and report the same to the Commissioner. (2) If, on a consideration of the report of the auditor along with the report, if any, of the Committee, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Committee or any officer or other employee of the Devaswom was guilty of misappropriation or wilful waste of the funds of the Devaswom or gross neglect resulting in loss to the Devaswom, the Commissioner may, after giving notice to the Committee or such officer or other employee to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against it or him and after considering its or his explanation, if any, by or certify the amount so lost and direct the Committee or such officer or other employee to pay within a specified time such amount personally and not from the funds of the Devaswom: Provided that if in respect of any expenditure or dealing with the property of the Devaswom, the Committee or such officer or other employee had obtained the directions of the Commissioner or the Government and had acted in accordance with the said directions, the Committee or such person shall not be held responsible. (3) The Commissioner shall forward a copy of the order under subsection (2) with the reasons for the same by registered post to the Committee or the officer or other employee concerned. (4) The Committee or officer or other employee aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner under subsection (2) may, within thirty days of the receipt by it or him of that order, apply to the court to modify or set aside the order, and the court, after taking such evidence as is necessary, may confirm, modify or remit the surcharge. (5) An order of surcharge under this section against the Committee shall not bar a suit for accounts against it except in respect of the matters finally dealt with by such order. (5) An order of surcharge under this section against the Committee shall not bar a suit for accounts against it except in respect of the matters finally dealt with by such order. (6) Any amount recoverable from the Committee or any officer or other employee by way of surcharge may on requisition made by the Commissioner be recovered under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, as if it were an arrear of public revenue due on land.” The audit of Guruvayur Devaswom is conducted by the Director of Kerala State Audit in accordance with Rule 17 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980. It is the duty of the auditor to examine and report all cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or failure to recover moneys or other properties due to Devaswom or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof caused by neglect or misconduct. Thus, any irregular appointments made to posts under the Devaswom which are governed by Regulations are nothing but irregular and improper payments and wasteful expenditure caused by neglect, and within the scope of audit in terms of Section 25. However, can an audit objection raised by the auditor invalidate the promotions granted to the petitioner? 8. Section 26 of the Act deals with rectification of defects disclosed in audit and order of surcharge against Committee, etc. Section 26 (1) provides that it shall be the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor. Section 26(2) empowers the Commissioner to take action if, upon consideration of the auditor’s report and any report from the Committee, it is found that the Committee or an officer/employee of the Devaswom is responsible for misappropriation, willful waste, or gross neglect causing financial loss to the Devaswom. The Commissioner may issue a notice requiring the responsible party to explain why a surcharge should not be imposed. After considering the response, the Commissioner can certify the amount lost and direct the responsible party to repay it personally within a specified time frame. The Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor. In the case of irregular appointments or promotions also, it is the duty of the Committee to remedy the irregularities in appointments or promotions pointed out by the auditor. The Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor. In the case of irregular appointments or promotions also, it is the duty of the Committee to remedy the irregularities in appointments or promotions pointed out by the auditor. The non compliance may entail surcharge or recovery proceedings against the Committee or any officer or employee of the Devaswom who is found guilty of wilful waste of the funds of the Devaswom or gross neglect resulting in loss to the Devaswom. At the same time, the audit objection raised by the auditor cannot by itself render the promotions granted to the petitioner invalid or illegal and his objections cannot have the effect of nullifying the promotions granted. True, when the auditor has pointed out the irregularities in the promotions as per Section 26 (1) of the Act, it is the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor. However, the remedial measures that affect the rights of an individual employee shall only be taken after the affected individual has been given an opportunity to respond to the objection. The audit objection can form the basis of proceedings to nullify the promotion taking recourse to due process of law. The petitioner was promoted as Second Grade Overseer on 24.10.2007 and as First Grade Overseer on 02.06.2009. The probation in the above posts was also duly declared. It is pointed out in Ext. P5 audit objection of the 3rd respondent issued one week before the retirement of the petitioner that the promotions granted to the petitioner years back were wrong as he was not having the required qualification for the promotions. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that the service book of the petitioner was furnished to the audit for verification belatedly. The petitioner is not responsible for the delay in audit. The promotions granted in 2007 and 2009 cannot be unsettled at this distance of time, that too, on the basis of an audit objection to which the petitioner never had an opportunity to respond. An audit objection could indeed lead to nullification of promotion through due process of law, following the relevant service regulations, but that by itself will not render the promotions granted invalid. An audit objection could indeed lead to nullification of promotion through due process of law, following the relevant service regulations, but that by itself will not render the promotions granted invalid. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the steps taken by the respondents to curtail the pensionary benefits of the petitioner acting upon Exts. P5 and P6 and treating him as retired from service as Senior Technician/ Senior Operator instead of First Grade Overseer has to be interfered with. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to sanction and disburse full pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as if he has retired from service from the post of First Grade Overseer de hors the objection raised in Exts. P5 and P6. All retirement benefits due to the petitioner which are being withheld shall be disbursed as directed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of.