JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. In this writ petition the petitioner assails the order dated 06.03.2002 (Annexure-11) passed by the Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Pallahara (opposite party no.1) in Certificate Case No.1 of 2000 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,06,011/-. 2. The petitioner while working as a Senior Clerk in Pallahara Block Office was in charge of the cash. He was transferred to the Tahasil Office, Pallahara on 10.07.1988 and accordingly he was relieved from the Block Office on 24.07.1988. Subsequently a Special Audit was conducted with regard to income and expenditure of Pallahara Block Office. As per the Special Audit Report, the petitioner was the cashier in charge of cash of Pallahara Block during his incumbency and that huge amount of advances were given on 27.07.1991 and 14.08.1991 on the date of handing over charges by the petitioner and these advances were not adjusted till the end of the year 1993-94. As per the audit report no.22/1998-99, the Auditor opined that in view of the nature of transaction and un-adjustment of advance, the payment of advance seems to be doubtful and false. On 31.03.1999, on the basis of the audit report, the petitioner was placed under suspension while he was working in the Tahasil Office. On the basis of the audit report, the B.D.O., Pallahara submitted requisition of Certificate under Section 4 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (in short ‘the OPDR’ Act) to the Sub-Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, which was registered as Certificate Case No.1 of 2000. On receipt of notice in the Certificate case, the petitioner submitted show cause stating inter alia that the proceeding was not maintainable. He also challenged the show cause notice before this Court in a writ petition, which was registered as OJC No.361 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.02.2001 with the observation that all the objections raised by the petitioner shall be dealt with by the Certificate Officer in accordance with law. It is stated that on 25.09.2001 the Certificate Officer in a cryptic order (Annexure-9) directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within one month without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Assailing the order under Annexure-9, the petitioner filed another writ petition, which was registered as OJC No.14788 of 2001. It is stated that on 25.09.2001 the Certificate Officer in a cryptic order (Annexure-9) directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within one month without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Assailing the order under Annexure-9, the petitioner filed another writ petition, which was registered as OJC No.14788 of 2001. By order dated 20.11.2001, this Court quashed the order of the Certificate Officer and directed him for further hearing on the objection of the petitioner and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present impugned order (Annexure-11) has been passed by the Certificate Officer holding that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount and directed to deposit the same on the basis of the observation made in the audit report. The objections raised by the petitioner in his show cause have not been dealt with. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any determination of liability of the petitioner either in a departmental proceeding or any judicial proceeding in respect of the amount shown in the audit report, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner merely on the basis of the audit report. It is also submitted that as per the Finance Department Office Memorandum dated 22.08.1991 (Annexure-12) which stipulates that findings in the audit report does not impose any liability on the Government servant unless the same is established in the departmental proceeding, such amount does not come under the purview of Government dues and, therefore, no certificate would have been issued for realization of the amount from the petitioner in absence of any determination of liability in any departmental proceeding. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3383 and also a single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6873 of 2004 disposed of on 04.08.2015. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3383 and also a single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6873 of 2004 disposed of on 04.08.2015. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that even though no liability of the petitioner has been determined in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the amount of defalcation found in the audit report would amount to a ‘public demand’ within the meaning of the provisions of the OPDR Act and accordingly recoverable in terms of the provision of Section 4 of the Public Accountants’ Default Act, 1850. In this respect he relies on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Pradhan v. State of Orissa and others, 2000 (I) OLR 162 . 4. The facts in the case of Sudhakar Pradhan (supra) are exactly identical to the facts of the present case. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court interpreting the relevant provisions of the Public Accountants’ Default Act,1850 and that of the OPDR Act have held as follows :- “5. The petitioner was the Nazir in the Collectorate. It is not in dispute that the certificate proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the final audit reports. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of the Public Accountants’ Default Act, 1850 as well as provisions of the Orissa Act relied on by the Certificate-holder in his counter affidavit. Section 3 of the Public Accounts’ Default Act, 1850 defines “public accountant” to mean inter alia, any person who by reason of any office hold by him in the service of the Central Government or the Government of a State is entrusted with the receipt, custody or control of any moneys or securities for money or the management of any lands belonging to such Government. Section 4 of the said Act states that the Head of the Office may proceed against a “public accountant” in his office for any loss or defalcation in his accounts as if the amount thereof were an arrear of land revenue due to the Government. Section 4 of the said Act states that the Head of the Office may proceed against a “public accountant” in his office for any loss or defalcation in his accounts as if the amount thereof were an arrear of land revenue due to the Government. This means that the amount of loss or defalcation in accounts has to be taken to be arrear of land revenue due to the Government. Section 2(g) of the Orissa Act defines “Public Demand” to mean any arrear or money specified in Schedule-I. In the counter affidavit reliance has been placed on Item (ix) of Schedule-I in support of the contention that the amount in the certificate cases is an arrear of land revenue and is recoverable as public demand under the provisions of the Orissa Act. Item (ix) of Schedule-I of the Orissa Act reads as follows :- “Any money which is recoverable under any law, custom or usage for the time being in force as an arrear revenue or land revenue or by the process authorized for the recovery of arrears of land revenue or of the public revenue or of Government revenue.” 6. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it follows that the Head of the Office to which any public accountant belongs, would be competent to proceed against such public accountant for recovery of the amount of loss or defalcation in accounts by taking recourse to the provisions of the Orissa Act as if such amount is public demand. The petitioner was the Nazir and having regard to the duties and responsibilities of Nazir as indicated in Rules 48 and 50 of the Orissa Nizarat Manual, we are inclined to hold that he squarely comes within the definition of ‘public accountant’.” 5. The decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. That was a case where during the pendency of a departmental proceeding and a criminal prosecution the pension and gratuity of the respondent therein was withheld by the State-appellant, which was contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules. That was a case where during the pendency of a departmental proceeding and a criminal prosecution the pension and gratuity of the respondent therein was withheld by the State-appellant, which was contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules. Though the action of withholding pension and gratuity was sought to be justified on the basis of an administrative instruction, the Hon’ble apex Court brushed aside the contention of the State-appellant holding that the administrative instructions cannot supplant the statutory rules under which the State has no power to withhold pension and gratuity of a retired employee without there being any determination of liability in any departmental or judicial proceeding. Therefore, the said decision of the Hon’ble apex Court is of no help to the petitioner. Similarly, the decision of the single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6873 of 2004 in the case of Tapilal Tandi has no application to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the direction of the employers of the petitioner therein for recovery of money found to have been defalcated in an audit report was quashed on the footing that the petitioner was found not guilty in the departmental proceeding initiated on the charges of such defalcation and for a criminal prosecution initiated on the same charge was also quashed and the demand made earlier by the employer as per the audit report had been quashed by this Court in an earlier writ petition. That was not a case of initiation of any certificate proceeding under the provisions of the OPDR Act, and further, the decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Pradhan (supra) had not been noticed in that case. 6. The decision of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Pradhan (supra) fully applies to the facts of the present case and in view of what has been held therein, this Court is constrained to hold that the certificate proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the amount as a public demand is maintainable even though no liability has been fixed on the petitioner in any departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. Therefore, the question of maintainability of the proceeding stands concluded. Therefore, the question of maintainability of the proceeding stands concluded. However, since the Sub-Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Pallahara has not dealt with other objections raised by the petitioner in his show cause vide Annexure-8, in terms of Section 8 of the OPDR Act, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the Certificate Officer for passing a reasoned order with regard to other objections of the petitioner except the question of maintainability of the certificate proceeding. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.