State Of Jharkhand vs Ranjan Kumar - 2026 Supreme(SC) 511

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 511

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R. MAHADEVAN
State Of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Ranjan Kumar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
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.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

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 unaut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 511

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R. MAHADEVANState Of Jharkhand – AppellantVersusRanjan Kumar – Respondent

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (3)

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R. MAHADEVAN
State Of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Ranjan Kumar – Respondent