06.08.2026 Sl. No.01. Ct. No.237 Suman CRR 79 of 2025 Jesmine Khatun -vs- The State of West Bengal Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Arkaprabho Roy Ms. Anisa Roy Mr. Soujanyo Pattanayak Ms. Sharmistha Basak ..for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, ld. P.P. Mr. Subir Ganguly Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw ..for the State This High Court, by an order dated December 1, 2023, passed in WPA 24451 of 2022, observed that the appointment of the petitioner was highly doubtful and, prima facie, appeared to be illegal. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bankura was directed to lodge a formal First Information Report (FIR) with the concerned police station in respect of the petitioner's appointment. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Inspector of Schools lodged FIR No. 428/2023 dated December 2, 2023 before Bankura Police Station under Sections 409, 417, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was thereafter investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the State. It appears from the materials on record that, during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit at Bhatra Sri Durga Vidyayatan High School pursuant to the recommendation of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner's husband, Seikh Sirajuddin, was serving as the Chairman of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission for the Western and Northern Regions. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner's appointment letter was issued on November 8, 2019, after the expiry of the panel prepared pursuant to the Twelfth Regional Level Selection Test, which had expired on April 23, 2015. The investigation also disclosed that although the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Sanskrit for Classes IX and X, the subject was not taught in those classes at the said school. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency froze five bank accounts. Of these, three belonged to the petitioner's husband and two belonged to the petitioner. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate against six accused persons, including the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner and her husband subsequently filed an application before the learned Judge, Special Court, 1st Court at Bankura, seeking defreezing of the aforesaid five bank accounts. Before the learned Special Judge, the Investigating Agency did not raise any objection to the defreezing of the accounts belonging to the petitioner's husband. However, it opposed the prayer insofar as the petitioner's accounts were concerned. Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed the prayer for defreezing the accounts of the petitioner's husband. 2 However, the petitioner's two bank accounts, including her salary account, were not ordered to be defrozen. Aggrieved by the said order dated October 3, 2024, the petitioner has preferred the present application before this Court. It appears from the materials placed before this Court that the Investigating Agency found that a total sum of Rs. 20,86,038/- had been paid to the petitioner towards salary. It further appears that the petitioner's appointment was withdrawn by the competent authority on April 25, 2024. By that time, however, she had already received salary amounting to Rs. 20,86,038/-. It further appears that, at the time the accounts were frozen, a sum of Rs. 14,69,767/- was lying in the petitioner's salary account maintained with the State Bank of India, Bankura Town Branch. Upon scrutiny of the petitioner's Canara Bank account, the Investigating Agency found that the closing balance as on March 30, 2024, was Rs. 28,96,680/-. It was further found that substantial amounts had been credited to the said account from various sources on different dates. Some of these amounts were subsequently debited and transferred to the account of the petitioner's husband. The Investigating Agency found these transactions to be suspicious and was of the opinion that further investigation was necessary to verify the nature and genuineness of the transactions. It further appears that the Investigating Agency sought permission to file a 3 supplementary charge sheet upon completion of further investigation and collection of additional evidence. This Court is of the view that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie indicate that the petitioner, during the period of her allegedly illegal appointment, received a total sum of Rs. 20,86,038/- as salary in the capacity of an Assistant Teacher, resulting in a corresponding wrongful gain to herself and wrongful loss to the public exchequer. The aggregate amount lying in the petitioner's two frozen bank accounts does not exceed the aforesaid amount. Further investigation is still in progress. At this stage, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Special Judge rightly declined the petitioner's prayer for defreezing her two bank accounts. Accordingly, CRR 79 of 2025 is dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 4