IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13407 of 2007 DEO KUMAR, SON OF LATE CHANDESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, P.S. MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI ………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE D.M., VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI 4. THE D.G.P., PATNA 5. THE D.I.G. VIGILANCE, MUZAFFARPUR RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE S.P. VAISHALI, HAJIPUR……RESPODNENTS ----------- 2. 07.09.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State It appears that the impugned letter of the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali as contained in Annexure-4 is not the final order. By the said letter, petitioner has been directed to place his case, in the light of the enquiry report of the Inspector of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department in respect of the dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner as `Deo Kumar’. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has apprehension that even if he produces relevant documents in support of his claim that he is `Deo Kumar’, the same may not be accepted by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali - 2 - in view of the report of the Inspector of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department. He submits that the Inspector of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department has submitted a report ex parte and without going through the documents by which petitioner is in a position to establish his identity as `Deo Kumar’ and only on the basis of an allegation of a person with whom admittedly petitioner had enmity. Since the respondent-District Superintendent of Education has directed the petitioner to place his case before him in the light of the report of the Inspector of the cabinet (Vigilance) Department, apprehension of the petitioner may be correct. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent-District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali to consider all the documents which petitioner may produce before him in reply to the said letter (Annexure-4), objectively, and to come to a definite finding, independent of the said report of the Inspector of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, with regard to identity of the petitioner as `Deo Kumar’. It is further made clear that - 3 - respondent-District Superintendent of Education shall not be prejudiced by the said report and shall come to an independent and objective finding in the matter on the basis of the preliminary evidence produced before him by the petitioner. The District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali must complete this exercise within three months from the date of filing of the documents by the petitioner before him. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)