The Supreme Court has restored the dismissal of a Jharkhand police constable accused of fraudulently securing simultaneous appointments in the police forces of Jharkhand and Bihar under different identities, holding that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review in interfering with concurrent disciplinary findings.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand and set aside the Jharkhand High Court Division Bench judgment, which had quashed the constable’s dismissal from service.
According to the State, the respondent was appointed as a constable in Jharkhand Police in 2005, but while on leave in December 2007, allegedly secured another appointment in Bihar Police under the name “Santosh Kumar” using forged documents and fabricated credentials. The Court noted that departmental authorities had concurrently found him guilty of fraud, impersonation, cheating and unauthorised absence.
“The allegations concern a deliberate and premeditated fraud upon two State police forces, namely the States of Jharkhand and Bihar, by securing or attempting to secure public employment under two different names with inconsistent parentage particulars.”
The Court also relied on a fresh inquiry conducted pursuant to its earlier directions, where the Bihar Police carried out a forensic comparison of fingerprints, biometric records and photographs, which established that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were the same person. The Court observed:
“It is well settled that a member of the police force is expected to maintain the highest degree of integrity, honesty and discipline. Fraud at the threshold of entry into service strikes at the very root of public employment. In the present case, the material available goes far beyond mere suspicion and reasonably establishes a conscious course of deceit adopted by Respondent No. 1 for obtaining employment benefits from two sovereign employers in a disciplined force.”
Criticising the High Court’s interference in disciplinary findings, the Bench referred to Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath, in Civil Appeal Nos. 7939- 7940 of 2022 decided on 22.11.2022, and reiterated the settled law on limited judicial review in service matters and held:
“The Division Bench, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in the Letters Patent Appeal, clearly transgressed the settled parameters of judicial review by reappreciating the evidence and disturbing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. Such an approach cannot be countenanced in law.”
The Supreme Court held that allegations involving impersonation, fraud, forged credentials and dual employment in police departments directly undermine institutional discipline and public confidence in the police force. The Court observed that the dismissal order was a proportionate consequence of a fair and lawful departmental inquiry. The Court further stressed that police service demands the highest degree of integrity and honesty.
“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.”
While restoring the dismissal order, the Court also directed the initiation of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the respondent in relation to allegations of cheating, impersonation and forgery. Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court additionally quashed the Bihar Police appointment obtained under the name “Santosh Kumar.”
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AoR Mr. Zain A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Dev Aaryan, Adv. Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Abran Khan, Adv.
Respondents- Mr. Kumar Shivam, AoR Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv. Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AoR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi, Adv.
