Certificate recovery proceedings based on an undisclosed vigilance report violate natural justice.

The petitioner, a former Panchayat Rojgar Sewak of Gram Panchayat Gogri, Khagaria, was associated with several development schemes implemented during 2007–2010. He contended that the works were completed after preparation and verification of the relevant estimates and Measurement Books by the competent engineering authorities, and that the schemes had been audited without any irregularity being found.

After approximately seven to eight years, the Programme Officer initiated proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, seeking recovery of ₹3,47,421 from the petitioner. A certificate case was instituted, and notice under Section 7 was issued. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9, asserting, inter alia, that the schemes had been completed and audited and that no irregularity had been established. The Certificate Officer nevertheless passed an order under Section 10, followed by a notice in Form No. 17 requiring payment and threatening attachment proceedings.

The petitioner challenged those orders, principally contending that the Vigilance Inquiry Committee Report, on which the certificate order was based, had not been supplied to him.

Whether the Certificate Officer could pass an order under Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act without supplying the petitioner with the Vigilance Inquiry Committee Report relied upon against him, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Whether the certificate proceedings and consequential recovery notices were liable to be set aside for failure to duly consider the petitioner’s objections under Section 9 of the Act.

The Court applied Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, governing notice of certificate proceedings, the debtor’s right to file objections, and adjudication by the Certificate Officer.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person must be furnished with material relied upon by the decision-maker and given a fair opportunity to meet the case against him. An order founded substantially on an undisclosed adverse report is unsustainable for denial of a fair hearing.

The Court found that the Vigilance Inquiry Committee Report formed the basis of the Certificate Officer’s order, but had not been supplied to the petitioner. Without access to that material, the petitioner could not effectively controvert the allegations or demonstrate why the claimed public demand was disputed.

This omission amounted to a violation of natural justice and vitiated the order under Section 10, irrespective of the respondents’ contention that the petitioner had not raised objections. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned certificate order and remit the matter for fresh consideration, rather than adjudicating the underlying recovery claim itself.

The respondents were directed to supply the Vigilance Inquiry Committee Report to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted one month from receipt of the judgment to raise all his pleas before the Certificate Officer; thereafter, the Certificate Officer was directed to provide a fair hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within three months from the filing of the objections.