1. Petitioner retired from governmenl service as Head Clerk in T. B.D.C. Training Centre on 28.2.1997. A certificate case being Certificate (Misc.) Case no. 17/04-05 was registered against four persons including the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 11,74,852.25 from each of the four persons named therein totaling to Rs. 46,99,409 on the charge of being defalcated amount. The petitioner challenges these proceedings.

2. Petitioner contends that while he was in service, no proceedings were initiated against him- neither the departmental proceeding nor in relation to defalcation. No such proceeding was initiated with the aid of R. 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules even after his superannuation. A criminal case was instituted for defalcation in which after due investigation police submitted final report, which was accepted by the Court and there was no protes by the authority, as such even the criminal case was closed. Now, in the year 2004, a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act has been initiated being on basis of a recommendation of the Accountant General. Petitioner further submits that the Accountant General found another person guilty of fraudulent withdrawal against whom departmental proceeding was initiated in which the said person was held to be guilty. This departmental proceeding had continued even after superannuation of that person with the aid of R. 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. In those proceedings, the person had taken the plea that it was the petitioner, who was responsible but the department has rejected that defence. On the aforesaid ground, it was submitted that the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed in which apart from stating that the Accountant General held every one guilty of defalcation and that the order of the Certificate Officer refusing to drop the proceeding as against the petitioner was valid, nothing further is stated. The advice of the Accountant General has not been brought on record.

4. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

5. The first contention, as raised by the petitioner, is that the dues , as being sought to be recovered , are not public demand as contemplated under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. In my view, that is not a correct Position in law. Public Demand Recovery Act is meant for recovery of public demand as defined by Sec. 3, sub-sec. (6), which refers to Schedule 1 to the Act. Schedule 1 enumerates various demands under 15 heads to be public demand and item 3 reads as follows:-

"3. Any money which is declared by any law for the time being in force to be recoverable or realizable as an arrear of revenue or land-revenue, or by the process authorized for the recovery of arrears of revenue or of the public revenue or of Government revenue."

6. Public Accountants Default Act, 1850 provides that any money recoverable from "public accountants" as defined therein for loss caused by them or on account of defalcation in their accounts is recoverable as arrears or land revenue. Petitioner is public accountant as defined. If those dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue, then those dues would fall within item 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act and thus it would become a public demand. Thus this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner next submits that once the petitioner superannuated the master servant relationship ended. No departmental proceeding whatsoever was initiated even with the aid of R. 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules. While proceedings were initiated against others, who were found guilty even after their superannuation, no order was passed against the petitioner in any duly constituted proceedings holding petitioner to be guilty of defalca ion. Even in criminal prosecution, which was initiated against the petitioner, police after due investigation submitted final form , which was accepted by the