Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 511
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ranjan Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7364 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6111 of 2023]
Decided On : 08-05-2026
For the Petitioner(s): 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.
For the Respondent(s): 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.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dismissal – Public employment, particularly in police service, cannot be converted into instrument of fraud – If individuals entrusted with enforcing law themselves secure entry into service through deception and fabricated credentials, it would seriously erode rule of law.
(2) Punishment – In departmental proceedings, standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities – Where material on record reasonably supports departmental case, High Court would not reappreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal.
Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Dismissal – Reversal by Single Judge of High Court – Gravamen of charge against Respondent No. 1 is not a mere procedural lapse or unauthorised absence simpliciter – Allegations concern a deliberate and premeditated fraud upon two State police forces, by securing or attempting to secure public employment under two different names with inconsistent parentage particulars, supported by fabricated or manipulated documents – Member of police force is expected to maintain highest degree of integrity, honesty and discipline – Fraud at threshold of entry into service strikes at the very root of public employment – In present case, material available goes far beyond mere suspicion and reasonably establishes conscious course of deceit adopted by Respondent No. 1 for obtaining employment benefits from two sovereign employers in a disciplined force – Public employment, particularly in police service, cannot be converted into instrument of fraud – If individuals entrusted with enforcing law themselves secure entry into service through deception and fabricated credentials, it would seriously erode rule of law – Impugned Judgment of Division Bench set aside and Judgment of Single Judge along with order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority, as affirmed by appellate authority and revisional authority stands restored. [Rule 828 of Jharkhand Police Manual read with Appendix 49] (Paras 13, 17, 22, 24 and 27)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Punishment – Scope of judicial review – Findings of fact recorded by disciplinary authority are not to be interfered with by Court as a matter of course, particularly while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India – In departmental proceedings, standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities – Where material on record reasonably supports departmental case, High Court would not reappreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal – Being fact finding authorities, both Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are vested with exclusive power to examine evidence forming part of inquiry report – On finding evidence to be adequate and reliable during departmental inquiry, Disciplinary Authority has discretion to impose appropriate punishment on delinquent employee keeping in mind gravity of misconduct – However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, High Court or Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of penalty imposed unless and until punishment imposed is so disproportionate to offence that it would shock conscience of High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed. (Paras 19 and 22)
Facts of the case:
The principal issue which falls into consideration is whether the disciplinary action taken against Respondent No. 1 Ranjan Kumar, culminating in his removal from service, suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise of judicial review.
Findings of Court:
In the background of the discussions made in this judgment, we deem it necessary to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice in the matter. Accordingly, Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 is quashed, and the appointment of Respondent No. 3, “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta Sharma as a Constable in the Bihar Police is set aside. The consequences, in law, shall follow.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Division Bench erred in reappreciating evidence and interfered with concurrent findings of guilt in a departmental proceeding. (!) - Findings of guilt based on impersonation, forgery, dual employment, and fraud in securing police employment were upheld as proportionate and justified; criminal proceedings directed. (!) (!) - Disciplinary authorities’ findings are to be reviewed under limited judicial review, not as an appeal on evidence; standard is preponderance and due process. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
JUDGMENT :
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the final judgment and order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in L.P.A. No. 74 of 2016, whereby the Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1 and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1128 of 2012 and consequentially, quashed the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing Respondent No. 1 from service, the order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the same, and the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the revisional authority rejecting the memorial petition.
3. The case of the appellants, as projected in the present appeal is that Respondent No. 1 – Ranjan Kumar, son of Kamta Singh, was appointed as Constable in the Jharkhand Police on 18.05.2005. While serving at Dhurki Police Station as Reserve Guard, he was granted compensatory leave for two days from the afternoon of 20.12.2007 till 23.12.2007. However, he failed to rejoin duty on 23.12.2007 and remained unauthorisedly absent thereafter.
3.1. During the said period of absence, Respondent No. 1 is alleged to have secured appointment as Constable in the State of Bihar vide Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 under the name Santosh Kumar, son of Kamta Sharma, by relying upon forged certificates and fabricated credentials. It is further alleged that without any information or permission, he abandoned duty from Patna District Police on 06.01.2008.
3.2. Thereafter, notice was issued to him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna vide Memo No. 6868 dated 24.04.2008. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad caused an enquiry to be conducted through the Officer-in-Charge, Onkari Police Station, and addressed Memo No. 2512/Go dated 21.06.2008. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and the report submitted therein disclosed that Respondent No. 1 and the said Santosh Kumar were one and same person.
3.3. Based on the aforesaid material, a memorandum of charge dated 02.09.2008 came to be issued to Respondent No. 1, to which, he submitted his written statement of defence on 29.09.2008. Upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, Appellant No. 4, Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, passed an order dated 20.08.2010 dismissing Respondent No. 1 from service.
3.4. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No. 1 preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, Appellant No. 3, which came to be rejected vide Memo No. 806/Go dated 21.05.2011. A memorial petition thereafter preferred by Respondent No. 1 was also rejected by the revisional authority, Appellant No. 2, vide Memo No. 59 dated 06.02.2012.
3.5. After exhausting the departmental remedies, Respondent No. 1 filed W.P (S) No. 1128 of 2012 before the High Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 30.10.2015. Being dissatisfied, Respondent No. 1 preferred L.P.A. No. 74 of 2016, which came to be allowed by the Division Bench through the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2022. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the appellants are before this Court with the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and consequentially, quashing the orders of the appellants dismissing Respondent No. 1 from service.
4.1. It was contended that the learned Single Judge had specifically held that the order of penalty was neither passed by ignoring relevant material on record nor based on no evidence. Despite such findings, the Division Bench wrongly concluded that there was no evidence to establish that Respondent No. 1 had secured appointment with Bihar Police while continuing in service under the Jh
