ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Service Law — Departmental enquiry — Police constable — Fraudulent dual employment — Impersonation and forged credentials — Scope of judicial review — Dismissal from service restored. Respondent was appointed as Constable in Jharkhand Police on 18.05.2005 under name “Ranjan Kumar”, son of Kamta Singh. While serving as Reserve Guard at Dhurki Police Station, he proceeded on compensatory leave from 20.12.2007 but failed to rejoin duty thereafter. During period of unauthorised absence, he allegedly secured another appointment as Constable in Bihar Police on 26.12.2007 under different identity namely “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta Sharma, by using forged certificates and fabricated credentials. Departmental enquiry was initiated on basis of reports received from Bihar authorities and contemporaneous official communications indicating that both identities belonged to same individual. Disciplinary authority dismissed respondent from service. Appellate and revisional authorities affirmed punishment. Learned Single Judge upheld dismissal, but Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal interfered on ground that there was no legal evidence to prove misconduct. Held, findings recorded by disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority were concurrent findings of fact based on relevant materials including appointment forms, photographs, certificates, enquiry reports and official communications from Bihar Police authorities. Departmental proceedings are governed by principle of preponderance of probabilities and strict rules of evidence under Evidence Act are inapplicable. Division Bench exceeded limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions in place of findings recorded in disciplinary enquiry. Since charges of impersonation, fraud, dual employment and forgery stood reasonably established, punishment of dismissal was justified and proportionate. Judgment of Division Bench was therefore set aside and dismissal order restored. (Paras 3 to 5.10, 11 to 22, 27)

Saturday, May 9, 2026

Service Law — Departmental enquiry — Police constable — Fraudulent dual employment — Impersonation and forged credentials — Scope of judicial review — Dismissal from service restored. Respondent was appointed as Constable in Jharkhand Police on 18.05.2005 under name “Ranjan Kumar”, son of Kamta Singh. While serving as Reserve Guard at Dhurki Police Station, he proceeded on compensatory leave from 20.12.2007 but failed to rejoin duty thereafter. During period of unauthorised absence, he allegedly secured another appointment as Constable in Bihar Police on 26.12.2007 under different identity namely “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta Sharma, by using forged certificates and fabricated credentials. Departmental enquiry was initiated on basis of reports received from Bihar authorities and contemporaneous official communications indicating that both identities belonged to same individual. Disciplinary authority dismissed respondent from service. Appellate and revisional authorities affirmed punishment. Learned Single Judge upheld dismissal, but Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal interfered on ground that there was no legal evidence to prove misconduct. Held, findings recorded by disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority were concurrent findings of fact based on relevant materials including appointment forms, photographs, certificates, enquiry reports and official communications from Bihar Police authorities. Departmental proceedings are governed by principle of preponderance of probabilities and strict rules of evidence under Evidence Act are inapplicable. Division Bench exceeded limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions in place of findings recorded in disciplinary enquiry. Since charges of impersonation, fraud, dual employment and forgery stood reasonably established, punishment of dismissal was justified and proportionate. Judgment of Division Bench was therefore set aside and dismissal order restored. (Paras 3 to 5.10, 11 to 22, 27)

advocatemmmohan

APEX COURT HELD THAT

Service Law — Departmental enquiry — Police constable — Fraudulent dual employment — Impersonation and forged credentials — Scope of judicial review — Dismissal from service restored.

Respondent was appointed as Constable in Jharkhand Police on 18.05.2005 under name “Ranjan Kumar”, son of Kamta Singh. While serving as Reserve Guard at Dhurki Police Station, he proceeded on compensatory leave from 20.12.2007 but failed to rejoin duty thereafter. During period of unauthorised absence, he allegedly secured another appointment as Constable in Bihar Police on 26.12.2007 under different identity namely “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta Sharma, by using forged certificates and fabricated credentials. Departmental enquiry was initiated on basis of reports received from Bihar authorities and contemporaneous official communications indicating that both identities belonged to same individual. Disciplinary authority dismissed respondent from service. Appellate and revisional authorities affirmed punishment. Learned Single Judge upheld dismissal, but Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal interfered on ground that there was no legal evidence to prove misconduct.

Held, findings recorded by disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority were concurrent findings of fact based on relevant materials including appointment forms, photographs, certificates, enquiry reports and official communications from Bihar Police authorities. Departmental proceedings are governed by principle of preponderance of probabilities and strict rules of evidence under Evidence Act are inapplicable. Division Bench exceeded limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions in place of findings recorded in disciplinary enquiry. Since charges of impersonation, fraud, dual employment and forgery stood reasonably established, punishment of dismissal was justified and proportionate. Judgment of Division Bench was therefore set aside and dismissal order restored. (Paras 3 to 5.10, 11 to 22, 27)

Service Jurisprudence — Departmental proceedings — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probabilities — Strict rules of Evidence Act inapplicable.

Department relied upon documentary material including photocopies of application forms, certificates, photographs and official reports from Bihar authorities to establish that respondent had secured dual employment under different identities. Respondent contended that authors of documents were not examined and documents were not formally proved.

Held, departmental enquiries are not criminal trials and strict technical rules of evidence do not apply. So long as delinquent employee is afforded fair opportunity and findings are based on relevant material having probative value, disciplinary findings cannot be interfered with. Standard applicable in departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere non-examination of some witnesses or formal proof of documents would not vitiate enquiry when overall material reasonably supports conclusion of guilt. (Paras 18, 19)

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Judicial review in disciplinary matters — High Court cannot act as appellate authority.

Division Bench interfered with concurrent findings recorded in departmental proceedings by reassessing evidentiary material and holding that charges were not proved.

Held, scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining whether enquiry was conducted by competent authority, whether principles of natural justice were complied with, and whether findings are based on some evidence. High Court cannot reappreciate evidence, examine adequacy or reliability of evidence, or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view is possible. Interference is permissible only where findings are perverse, arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no evidence. Division Bench transgressed settled parameters governing judicial review under Article 226. (Paras 19, 20)

Police Service — Integrity and discipline — Fraud at entry level — Serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

Respondent allegedly obtained simultaneous appointments in Jharkhand and Bihar Police under different names and parentage particulars by use of fabricated documents and thereafter remained unauthorisedly absent from duty.

Held, member of police force is expected to maintain highest degree of integrity, honesty and discipline. Fraud at threshold of entry into public service strikes at root of institutional integrity and public confidence. Misconduct involving impersonation, cheating, forged credentials and fraudulent public employment cannot be treated lightly and continuance of such employee in disciplined police force would be detrimental to administration and rule of law. Punishment of dismissal was therefore proportionate and justified. (Paras 13, 17, 22, 24)

Evidence in departmental proceedings — Forensic comparison — Fingerprints and biometric records — Identity established.

During pendency of appeal before Supreme Court, Bihar Police was directed to conduct independent enquiry regarding identity of “Ranjan Kumar” and “Santosh Kumar”. Enquiry report based on fingerprint examination, biometric records and photographic comparison concluded that both identities belonged to same person.

Held, forensic comparison of fingerprints, biometric records and photographs constituted objective scientific material clearly establishing that “Ranjan Kumar” and “Santosh Kumar” were one and same person. Genealogical records and electoral rolls further indicated manipulated identity trail rather than existence of separate persons. Such scientific evidence substantially dislodged defence of mistaken identity raised by respondent. (Paras 8.2 to 8.4, 15, 16)

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Complete justice — Fraudulent appointment in Bihar Police quashed.

Supreme Court found that respondent had secured appointment in Bihar Police as “Santosh Kumar” under fabricated identity while already serving in Jharkhand Police.

Held, to do complete justice under Article 142 of Constitution, Patna District Order No.10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 appointing “Santosh Kumar” as Constable in Bihar Police was liable to be quashed and consequences in law were directed to follow. (Para 27.1)

Criminal Law — Departmental misconduct disclosing cognizable offences — Direction for criminal proceedings.

Supreme Court found that allegations against respondent involving impersonation, forgery, use of forged documents, cheating and false representation disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences.

Held, misconduct established in departmental proceedings also disclosed criminal offences under Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Director General of Police, Bihar and Director General of Police, Jharkhand were therefore directed to ensure examination of matter by competent police authority and initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings in accordance with law. (Paras 23 to 25)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN