The petitioner's issues could be addressed through an appeal under Section 60 of the Act, and the court declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits.

ORDER :

1. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to delete the name of the respondent no. 4 from the cause title of the writ petition.

Let necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the day.

However, the said respondent shall remain arrayed in official capacity.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3-the District Certificate Officer, Lohardaga in TR No. 355/2020-21, whereby the reply filed by the petitioner against a notice dated 11.01.2021 issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1914”) has been rejected and alleged defalcated amount of Rs. 76,08,826/- has been directed to be deposited before the respondents, failing which coercive order of attachment/warrant of arrest would be issued. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 as the aforesaid order is completely dehors the provisions as contained under Section 10 of the Act, 1914.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 purportedly exercising power under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 is bad in law as the same has been passed without proper hearing on the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act, whereby she had denied her liability to pay the certificate amount. It was imperative on the part of the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate evidence and to determine as to whether the certificate debtor (the petitioner) is liable for whole or any part of the certificate amount sought to be realised through the certificate case in question.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4-the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga stating inter alia that during the relevant period, the petitioner was the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Lohardaga and she was found involved in misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 76,08,826/-. A departmental proceeding was initiated against her vide resolution no. 161 dated 24.07.2010 and memo of charge was served to her. After conducting the enquiry, the charge against the petitioner was found true and thereafter, she was dismissed from service vide notification no. 607 dated 28.06.2016. The said order/notification of dismissal has been challenged by her before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5055 of 2016, which is pending adjudication. It has further been stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner is liable to pay the defalcated amount of Rs. 76,08,826/- in pursuance of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 in certificate case being T.R. No. 355/2020-21.

4. In addition to the aforesaid stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent no. 2 the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga under Section 60 of the Act, 1914 against the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 in the aforesaid certificate case.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 3 has passed the order dated 07.12.2021 under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 in a mechanical manner without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as she was not permitted to adduce any evidence in su