Recovery proceedings under P.D.R. Act must be stayed pending adjudication of Section 9 objections and departmental findings.

The petitioner, formerly a Block Statistics Supervisor-cum-Assistant Manager at the TPDS Godown, Bagaha-II, challenged a series of memos and an audit report dated July 12, 2022. These instruments imposed a compensation liability of ₹1,72,74,845.49 for the alleged damage and defalcation of public foodgrains (wheat and rice) during his tenure from September 2019 to June 2021.

Following an audit report by the District Administration, the District Manager filed a requisition under Section 5 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery (P.D.R.) Act for recovery of the amount, leading to Certificate Case No. 13/22-23 and a notice under Section 7 of the Act.

The petitioner contended that a departmental proceeding regarding the same matter had already concluded, finding him innocent.

1. Whether the recovery proceedings against the petitioner should be stayed or finalized in light of his pending objection under the P.D.R. Act and his alleged exoneration in departmental proceedings.

Section 5 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery (P.D.R.) Act regarding the requisition for a certificate.

Section 7 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery (P.D.R.) Act regarding the service of notice and copy of certificate to the certificate-debtor.

Section 9 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery (P.D.R.) Act regarding the filing of a petition denying liability.

Section 10 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery (P.D.R.) Act regarding the hearing and determination of such petitions by the Certificate Officer.

The Court observed that the recovery process had reached the stage of statutory adjudication under the P.D.R. Act. The petitioner had already exercised his right to file a formal objection under Section 9 of the Act before the Certificate Officer, Bettiah.

The Court determined that since the statutory mechanism for disputing the debt was active, the appropriate course of action was to mandate a time-bound disposal of the objection.

The Court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing, noting that the Certificate Officer must consider the petitioner's evidence (including the alleged conclusion of departmental proceedings) before passing a final order under Section 10.

To protect the petitioner's interests during the pendency of this determination, the Court found it necessary to provide interim protection against coercive recovery.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Certificate Officer, Bettiah, to pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the P.D.R. Act within three months from the receipt of the order.

Crucially, the Court ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until the final order is passed by the Certificate Officer.