IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10303 of 2008 UMA SHANKAR PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 23.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certificate Case under Public Demand Recovery Act came to be instituted against the petitioner which is Certificate Case No. 7/2001-02. The reason for institution of the case was because of allegation made against him that he has joined as Assistant Teacher in a Project High School of Singhbhum on the strength of forged appointment letter dated 15.4.1988. An enquiry was held into the matter and even finding against the petitioner was recorded. An FIR was ordered to be instituted against the petitioner and even steps for recovery of so called salary drawn by him illegally during the period he had worked was sought to be recovered through certificate case. Petitioner has challenged the initiation of that case on the ground that even if the salary has been wrongly drawn by the petitioner the remedy for the respondents do not lie in invoking the provisions under Public Demand Recovery Act. According to him only such money can be recovered under the special statute if the provision has been made in Schedule-1. No clause of Schedule-1 indicates that salary drawn by an employee illegally can be recovered as a public demand through a certificate case. This according to the petitioner therefore is good enough ground for him to seek quashing of the proceeding. - 2 - Learned counsel for the respondent in the counter affidavit has taken a stand that the petitioner had managed appointment on a forged and fabricated appointment letter. This fact has been established after due enquiry. The salary drawn by him would amount to defalcation of government money and the public money will have to be recovered. The question is not about the recovery of public money but the manner it is sought to be recovered. If the special statute has been invoked and the power therein has been exercised then the power has to be authorized by the statute and the provisions thereof. Learned counsel for the State has failed to point out the provision under Schedule 1 of the Act under which the money of the present kind can be recovered by way of certificate proceeding. Petitioner has made out a case for interference The Certificate Case No. 7/2001-02 pending before the Certificate Officer, Jehanabad stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. Success of present petition however will not come in the way of the State if they have other forum for recovery of amount, if so advised. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)