IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.2003 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 15627/2009) 1.The State Of Bihar . 2.The Director Primary Education Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 3.The District Education Officer Bettiah West Champraran. 4.The District Superintendent of Education West Champaran, Bettiah. 5.Sub-Divisional Education Officer, West Chamarpan Bettiah. 6.Block Education Officer, Madhubani West Champaran. ……. Appellant-Respondent. Versus Shakuntala Gupta ,W/o-Sri Dina Nath Prasad Gupta,R/O Village-Madhubani,P.S. AND District-West Champaran Vettiah at present posted as Head Mistress Govt. Primary School Madhuyani Anchal-Madhubani, District-West Champaran. ……… Respondent-petitioner. ---------------------------------- 3 21.11.2011 We have perused the order of the writ Court and heard learned counsel for the State. We find no good reason to interfere with the order directing for continued payment of salary to the writ petitioner when she is discharging her duties and is not under suspension and the authorities are yet to complete the proceeding in accordance with law. According to learned counsel for the State, the enquiry report dated 3oth May, 2009 submitted by Sub-Divisional Education Officer, 2 Bettiah contained sufficient justification for stopping payment of salary to the writ petitioner and that such order for stopping salary passed under orders of the District Education Officer, Bettiah as indicated in order dated 11.8.2009(Annexure-7) should not have been interfered with by the writ Court. In our considered view, if the competent authority wanted to accept the enquiry report for removal of the writ petitioner from service on the allegation that she is an imposter and the original service holder had died in 1983, the competent authority had to supply a copy of enquiry report to the writ petitioner, giving her opportunity of hearing or filing representation and then only appropriate order could have been passed in accordance with law. There is no order for removal of the petitioner from service and in such circumstance, there could have been no order only to stop the payment of salary. Hence, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of writ Court.The appeal 3 is dismissed. It goes without saying that if the competent authority is so inclined, it may pass an appropriate order with regard to service of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. Since we find no merit in this Appeal, there is no need to issue notice in the limitation matter. Sudha (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)