Supreme Court Orders Criminal Action Against Constable Who Joined Bihar & Jharkhand Police In Different Names

Noting that public employment cannot be transformed into an instrument of fraud, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 8) directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against a police constable accused of obtaining dual appointments in Jharkhand and Bihar Police under different identities.

While restoring the dismissal of the delinquent officer, the Court observed that criminal proceedings also initiated against him, as the matter involved serious offences of impersonation and fraud.

“Public employment, particularly in the police service, cannot be converted into an instrument of fraud. If individuals entrusted with enforcing the law themselves secure entry into service through deception and fabricated credentials, it would seriously erode the rule of law. In these circumstances, while restoring the disciplinary action, it is both necessary and appropriate to direct initiation of criminal proceedings in accordance with law.”, observed a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan, while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's Division Bench judgment which overturned his dismissal from the service.

Background

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 1, Ranjan Kumar, who was appointed as a constable in Jharkhand Police on May 18, 2005.

According to the State, after proceeding on compensatory leave on December 20, 2007, he failed to rejoin duty and allegedly secured another appointment as a constable in Bihar Police on December 26, 2007 under the name “Santosh Kumar”, purportedly using different parental details and forged credentials.

The disciplinary authorities alleged that he simultaneously sought employment in two police forces by concealing his original identity and misleading authorities.

A departmental enquiry culminated in his dismissal from service on August 20, 2010. His departmental appeal and memorial petition were also rejected, prompting him to invoke Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226.

While a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court upheld the dismissal in 2015, a Division Bench later interfered with the punishment in a Letters Patent Appeal, holding that the findings were based on “no evidence” as material witnesses from Bihar had not been examined and documents relied upon were not formally proved.

Against the impugned order, the State of Jharkhand and others appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan held that departmental enquiries are not governed by strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials.

The Court held that documentary materials such as application forms, official correspondence, photographs, and enquiry reports constituted sufficient material with probative value for disciplinary action. Thus, the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate evidence like appellate authorities unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

“The law is settled that the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority are not to be interfered with by the Court as a matter of course, particularly while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities. Where the material on record reasonably supports the departmental case, the High Court would not reappreciate the evidence as if sitting in appeal.”, the court said.

“It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.”, the court endorsed the observation made in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584.

Order Of Dismissal Was Correct

The Court found the order of dismissal of the Respondent to be fair and reasonable, noting that “the continuance of such an employee in service would be wholly detrimental to institutional discipline, public confidence, and the credibility of the police force.”

“The order of dismissal passed against Respondent No. 1 was a proportionate and justified administrative measure arising out of a fair and lawful enquiry. Therefore, the Division Bench was not justified in reappreciating the evidence and setting aside the punishment imposed.”, the court held.

Resultantly, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand to ensure that the criminal aspect of the matter is examined by the competent jurisdictional authorities, upon noting that some allegations prima facie disclosed offences relating to cheating, forgery, impersonation and use of forged documents.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. VERSUS RANJAN KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Standing Counsel Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Zain A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Dev Aaryan, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Abran Khan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kumar Shivam, AOR Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv. Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi, Adv.