IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2054 of 2007 KUMUDINI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06. 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher on 22.12.1977 by the District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai. The appointment being in Government service by a Government functionary raises a presumption of its correctness under Section 114 of the Evidence Act especially if questioned after an unreasonable period. But, it is a rebuttable presumption. If the Respondents raise a serious doubt over the appointment, the onus shall shift to the petitioner. In pursuance of such appointment, the petitioner continued to discharge her duties peacefully. At the behest of the Headmaster, Middle School, Raghunathpur, where she had been subsequently transferred, certain issues with regard to her appointment was sought to be raised for his personal reasons. The petitioner was required on 18.9.2000 to submit papers regarding her appointment while ordering withholding payment of her salary. The petitioner complied the order and after verification, orders were issued for payment of her salary on 4.9.2001. This statement of fact is not denied by the Respondents in their counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit. Sahebpurkamal P.S. Case No. 131 of 2001 came to be lodged on 25.8.2001 against the aforesaid Headmaster with regard to 2 official misdeeds in which the petitioner was F.I.R. witness according to her. This propelled the entire issue of an enquiry into the alleged illegal appointment of the petitioner after 23-24 years of service. No sooner that the Headmaster was released from custody, he filed another application on 2.6.2005 hounding the petitioner. Her salary was again stopped by the District Superintendent of Education on 24.9.2005 and an enquiry recommenced in which the Respondents have now sought to justify the disputed facts that the petitioner was an imposter, who substituted herself in place of her deceased sister and continued in the employment. The enquiry report of the Respondents is annexed as Annexure-H to the supplementary counter affidavit. Government actions are required to be fair and reasonable. The Governmental authorities cannot be permitted to reopen settled matters at their whims and fancy. If the earlier enquiry into her appointment had not been held, the matter would have been different. There is no material on record to satisfy this Court of the reasons, why the first enquiry report of the legality of her appointment was not subsequently acceptable by the Respondents and on what fresh materials a subsequent enquiry was instituted. It appears that the only material afresh was the grudge of the Headmaster because she was an F.I.R. witness against him. The trial is stated to be pending. The enquiry report appended at Annexure-H to the supplementary affidavit is on a different irrelevant tangent and not with regard to the issues as to who was the adopted sister, how many sisters she has etc. 3 To this Court, the short questions to be considered at the enquiry were, how many sisters did the petitioner have, what were their names, did the petitioner have another name earlier, when was her sister appointed in service and what was the petitioner doing at that time, what was the date and circumstances of the date of death of her sister. When did the petitioner step in as an imposter, what were the distinguishing features between the petitioner’s sister and the petitioner to qualify her as an imposter assuming the name and identity of her deceased sister? This Court was inclined to allow this writ application with heavy costs but refrains from doing so. The Court, thus, returns a finding that the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed by abuse of power to investigate invalid and irregular appointments. The enquiry report dated 13.3.2009 at Annexure-H is, therefore, rejected by this Court as not germane to the issue at all. The order withholding her salary from 28.9.2005 is set aside. Let the entire arrears be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order along with future salary in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)