THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.versusRANJAN KUMAR & ORS.

                 [2026] 5 S.C.R. 522 : 2026 INSC 466

                    The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
                                  v.
                        Ranjan Kumar & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 7364 of 2026)
                                 08 May 2026
           [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose for consideration whether the disciplinary action taken
       against respondent No.1, culminating in his removal from service,
       suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service law – Dismissal from service – Respondent No.1
       secured appointment as a Constable under the name “SK”
       with Bihar Police while continuing in service as a Constable in
       the Jharkhand Police under the name “RK” through fabricated
       documents and thereafter remained unauthorisedly absent
       from service – Memorandum of charge issued in view of the
       serious irregularities committed to which respondent no.1
       submitted written statement of defence – Inquiry Officer
       thereafter submitted his report – Thereafter, the Superintendent
       of Police dismissed respondent No.1 from service – Concurrent
       findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority, the
       appellate authority and the revisional authority that the charges
       of fraud, impersonation, forgery, cheating, unauthorised
       absence from duty and violation of service discipline stood
       proved – Single Judge of the High Court upheld the dismissal,
       however, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the
       same – Correctness:
       Held: Member of the police force 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 – On facts, material available goes far beyond mere
       suspicion and reasonably establishes a conscious course of deceit
       adopted by respondent No.1 for obtaining employment benefits


* Author
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                              523

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


     from two sovereign employers in a disciplined force – Single
     Judge correctly appreciated the limited scope of judicial review
     and declined to substitute judicial opinion in place of the findings
     recorded in the disciplinary proceedings – However, the Division
     Bench, clearly transgressed the settled parameters of judicial
     review by reappreciating the evidence and disturbing concurrent
     findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority, Appellate
     Authority and Revisional Authority – Such approach cannot
     be countenanced in law – Respondent No.1 was duly served
     with a charge memorandum, furnished with relevant materials,
     afforded adequate opportunity to submit his defence, participated
     in the enquiry proceedings, received copy of the enquiry report,
     and submitted his representation thereon – Requirements of
     procedural fairness and substantial compliance with the prescribed
     procedure thus stand satisfied – Since the allegations levelled
     against respondent no.1 pertain to impersonation, fraud, use of
     forged credentials, dual employment in police departments and
     unauthorised absence, the continuance of such an employee
     in service would be wholly detrimental to institutional discipline,
     public confidence, and the credibility of the police force – Order
     of dismissal passed against respondent no.1 was a proportionate
     and justified administrative measure arising out of a fair and lawful
     enquiry – Thus, the Division Bench not justified in reappreciating the
     evidence and setting aside the punishment imposed – Allegations,
     reinforced by forensic findings, prima facie disclose the commission
     of cognizable offences such as cheating, impersonation, forgery,
     use of forged documents and furnishing false information to
     public authorities – 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 – Matter to be examined by the competent jurisdictional
     police authority and appropriate steps be taken, in accordance
     with law – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside,
     and that of the Single Judge along with the order of dismissal
     passed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by appellate
     authority and revisional authority stands restored – Patna District
524                                                           [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Order quashed, and appointment of respondent No.3, “SK”, as
       Constable in the Bihar Police set aside – Jharkhand Police Manual.
       [Paras 17, 19, 20-27.1]

                               Case Law Cited
       State of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491;
       M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and Others [2006] 3 SCR 896 : (2006)
       5 SCC 88; Union of India and Others v. Subrata Nath [2022] 18
       SCR 605 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860;
       Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                               List of Keywords
       Disciplinary action; Removal from service; Exercise of judicial
       review; Dismissal from service; Appointment; Bihar Police;
       Jharkhand Police; Fabricated documents; Unauthorisedly absent
       from service; Constable in Jharkhand Police; Constable in Patna
       District; Different set of certificates; Memorandum of charge;
       Serious irregularities; Charges of fraud, impersonation, forgery,
       cheating, unauthorised absence from duty and violation of service
       discipline.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
       7364 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2022 of the High Court
       of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 74 of 2016

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Kumar Anurag Singh, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Zain A. Khan,
       Dev Aaryan, Mohd. Abran Khan,
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Kumar Shivam, Manoj Tandon, Sameer Ranjan, Samir Ali Khan,
       Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan Faridi.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                        525

            The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                              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 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,


1    Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
526                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            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 Jharkhand Police.
       4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the charges framed against
            Respondent No. 1 stood duly proved on the basis of evidence
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           527

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


           adduced in the departmental proceedings, including photocopies
           of application forms, photographs, certificates submitted before the
           Bihar Police authorities, forms with photographs and certificates
           produced before the Garhwa Police, Jharkhand at the time of
           joining as well as reports obtained from the Superintendent of
           Police, Patna and Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. It was
           urged that the High Court fell into error in observing that the
           enquiry report referred to in letter dated 21.06.2008 had neither
           been tendered in evidence nor furnished to Respondent No.1,
           whereas in fact the said report had been supplied to him both
           along with the chargesheet and the enquiry report.
     4.3. It was next submitted that findings of fact recorded by the
          disciplinary authority ought not to be interfered with as a matter of
          course, particularly in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
          of the Constitution of India, and the Letters Patent Appeal was
          itself only an extension of the writ proceedings. In departmental
          proceedings, the applicable standard is that of preponderance of
          probabilities, which, according to learned counsel, clearly stood
          satisfied in the present case. All statutory remedies available
          to Respondent No. 1 had already been exhausted.
     4.4. Learned counsel pointed out that in the enquiry conducted by
          the Garhwa Police, it was found that Respondent No. 1 had
          secured appointment on 18.05.2005 as a Constable in the
          Jharkhand Police under the name “Ranjan Kumar”, son of
          Kamta Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Pitamberpur, P.S.
          Ghoshi, District Jehanabad, by submitting one set of certificates.
          Thereafter, the same individual allegedly secured appointment
          on 26.12.2007 as a Constable in Patna District under the
          name “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta Sharma, resident of
          Village Pitamberpur, P.S. Ghoshi, District Jehanabad, on the
          strength of a different set of certificates. In view of the serious
          irregularities so committed, a memorandum of charge dated
          02.09.2008 was issued to Respondent No. 1, to which he
          submitted a written statement of defence on 29.09.2008. The
          Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 01.07.2010,
          which was followed by Respondent No.1’s written reply dated
          31.07.2010. Ultimately, by order dated 20.08.2010 passed by
          the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, Respondent No. 1 was
          dismissed from service.
528                                                         [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       4.5. Placing reliance on the decision in State of Haryana and
            another v. Rattan Singh2, learned counsel submitted that in a
            domestic enquiry, strict and technical rules of evidence under
            the Indian Evidence Act do not apply, and any material which
            is logically probative for a prudent mind is admissible.
       4.6. It was urged that the misconduct proved was not of a minor
            nature, but involved deliberate acts of forgery and fraud for
            illegally drawing salary from the public exchequer. In such
            circumstances, the Division Bench ought to have dismissed the
            Letters Patent Appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1.
       4.7. Learned counsel lastly submitted that even assuming that
            material witnesses had not been examined, the Division Bench
            ought at the highest to have granted liberty to the appellants to
            continue the enquiry from the stage of examination of witnesses
            and/or to hold a fresh enquiry.
       4.8. It was further contended that the effect of the impugned judgment
            is that Respondent No.1, despite grave misconduct in securing
            appointments in both the Bihar and Jharkhand Police through
            fabricated documents and thereafter remaining unauthorisedly
            absent from service, has been allowed to go scot-free.
       4.9. On these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the present
            appeal be allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench be
            set aside.
5.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 submitted
       that the State of Bihar fully adopts and supports the submissions
       advanced by the appellants – State of Jharkhand and others, as the
       misconduct alleged against Respondent No. 1 concerns fraudulent
       conduct committed simultaneously against both States.
       5.1. It was submitted that Respondent No. 1 – Ranjan Kumar
            had initially applied pursuant to the advertisement issued for
            recruitment to the post of Constable in the Jharkhand Police
            Department. Merely twelve days thereafter, in response to a
            separate recruitment process initiated by Bihar Police, another
            application was submitted in the name of Santosh Kumar seeking
            appointment as Constable in Bihar Police.


2    (1977) 2 SCC 491
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                       529

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


     5.2. According to learned counsel, the photograph affixed in the
          Bihar Police application was that of the same individual who
          had applied before the Jharkhand authorities. However, the
          supporting certificates annexed thereto described the candidate
          as “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta Sharma, whereas in the
          Jharkhand records, Respondent No. 1 was reflected under a
          different name and parentage. This itself demonstrates deliberate
          impersonation and conscious use of dual identities for securing
          public employment.
     5.3. It was further submitted that on the basis of documents
          furnished by Respondent No. 1, his candidature was accepted
          by the Jharkhand Police authorities, and he was appointed
          as Constable in Garhwa District on 18.05.2005. Thereafter,
          while posted at Dhurki Police Station as Reserve Guard, he
          was granted compensatory leave for two days, namely from
          the afternoon of 20.12.2007 till 23.12.2007. However, instead
          of rejoining duty, he absented himself without authorisation.
          Learned counsel submitted that during the said unauthorised
          absence, Respondent No. 1 joined Bihar Police as Constable
          vide Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007
          in the assumed name of Santosh Kumar, son of Kamta
          Sharma, by relying upon forged and fabricated certificates.
          It was contended that Respondent No. 1 thus managed to
          secure employment in two disciplined police forces at the
          same time by deception.
     5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry initiated
          by the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad through the
          Officer-in-Charge of Onkari Police Station, revealed that the
          same individual was functioning under two names, namely as
          Ranjan Kumar in Jharkhand and Santosh Kumar in Bihar. The
          Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad thereafter addressed
          Memo No. 2512/go to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
          Patna recording that Constable No. 1331 Santosh Kumar, son
          of Kamta Sharma, resident of Pitambarpur, Police Station Ghosi
          (Onkari), had already been serving in Jharkhand Police for
          about two years; that he had recently joined Bihar Police but
          absconded during training; and that his family members were
          concealing material facts regarding his whereabouts. Thus,
          the contemporaneous official communications clearly establish
530                                                         [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            that Respondent No. 1 was indulging in fraud upon both State
            Governments by securing dual appointments through forged
            credentials and false representation.
       5.5. It was next submitted that in view of grave misconduct
            committed by Respondent No. 1, namely cheating, forgery,
            misleading authorities, suspicious conduct, unauthorised
            absence, and obtaining simultaneous employment in two
            police forces, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated
            against him by the Jharkhand authorities. Learned counsel
            pointed out that along with the memorandum of charge, all
            relevant documents forming the basis of the proceedings
            were supplied to Respondent No. 1, including recruitment
            advertisements, educational certificates, domicile certificate,
            official correspondence from Bihar authorities, enquiry reports
            and memoranda issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
            Jehanabad. Hence, the allegation of non-supply of documents
            is wholly misconceived.
       5.6. It was submitted that Respondent No. 1 submitted a written
            statement of defence, but failed to furnish any truthful, cogent,
            or transparent explanation regarding the incriminating findings
            of the Onkari Police Station enquiry or the dual identities used
            by him. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the documentary
            evidence and defence reply, held the charges proved.
       5.7. Learned counsel emphasised that a copy of the enquiry report
            was duly furnished to Respondent No. 1 and that he submitted
            a detailed representation thereto. Thus, full opportunity of
            defence was granted and the principles of natural justice were
            scrupulously complied with.
       5.8. It was submitted that upon consideration of the entire record,
            the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa passed final order dated
            20.08.2010 in Departmental Proceeding No. 48/08 dismissing
            Respondent No. 1 from service. The departmental appeal
            preferred before the Deputy Inspector General of Police was
            dismissed on 21.05.2011. Thereafter, the memorial petition
            preferred before the Director General-cum- Inspector General
            of Police (Revisional Authority) was also rejected by a reasoned
            order in February 2012.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                      531

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


     5.9. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single
           Judge, by a detailed judgment dated 30.10.2015, rightly
           dismissed the writ petition after finding no infirmity in the
           disciplinary process. However, the Division Bench erroneously
           allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, vide impugned judgment
           dated 25.08.2022. According to learned counsel, the Division
           Bench exceeded the settled limits of judicial review by
           reappreciating evidence in a departmental matter despite
           concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the disciplinary,
           appellate, and revisional authorities, as affirmed by the
           learned Single Judge.
     5.10. Considering the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submitted
           that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench deserves
           to be set aside and the order of dismissal passed against
           Respondent No. 1 restored.
6.   Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
     No. 1 – Ranjan Kumar, at the outset, submitted that the appellants
     have failed to make out any case warranting interference by this
     Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. According to
     the learned counsel, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench
     is a well-reasoned judgment passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
     6.1. It was submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings suffer
          from a fundamental defect, namely, that it is a case of no
          evidence. The charge against Respondent No. 1 pertained
          to alleged acts said to have occurred in the State of Bihar,
          yet not a single material witness from Bihar was examined to
          substantiate the allegations. Though several witnesses were
          cited in the memorandum of charge, only one formal witness
          was examined, and none of the persons connected with the
          alleged appointments, records, or complaints were produced
          before the Enquiry Officer. In such circumstances, the findings
          recorded against Respondent No. 1 are wholly unsupported
          by legal evidence.
     6.2. Learned counsel contended that mere production of documents
          does not amount to proof of their contents. The disciplinary
          authority relied upon letters and reports purportedly issued
          by the Superintendent of Police, Patna and Superintendent of
          Police, Jehanabad, but neither of the authors was examined
532                                                           [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            during the enquiry. Since the makers of those documents were
            withheld, Respondent No. 1 was denied the valuable right
            of cross-examination. It was urged that reliance upon such
            unproved documents is contrary to settled principles of natural
            justice and fair procedure.
       6.3. It was further submitted that the so-called enquiry report referred
            to by the department was nothing but a preliminary enquiry
            report, and punishment could not have been founded upon such
            material without proving the allegations in a regular departmental
            enquiry. To punish Respondent No. 1 solely on the basis of a
            preliminary fact-finding exercise, without examining the author
            thereof, renders the entire proceeding vitiated.
       6.4. According to the learned counsel, the service conditions of
            Respondent No. 1 are governed by the provisions of the
            Jharkhand Police Manual, including Rule 828 read with Appendix
            49, which contemplate a full-fledged disciplinary process.
            However, the present proceedings were conducted de hors the
            prescribed procedure and reduced to a mere formality, with the
            conclusion predetermined.
       6.5. It was argued that although strict rules of the Indian Evidence
            Act may not apply to departmental proceedings, the charge must
            nonetheless be established on the touchstone of preponderance
            of probabilities through cogent and reliable material. Suspicion,
            conjecture, or departmental assumptions cannot substitute
            proof. In the present case, there was no credible evidence to
            establish impersonation, forgery, or dual employment.
       6.6. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no conceivable
            reason for Respondent No. 1, already serving as a constable
            in Jharkhand, to seek another appointment in Bihar under a
            false identity. The allegation itself is inherently improbable and
            unsupported by any independent evidence.
       6.7. It was urged that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the
            writ petition, failed to appreciate that the disciplinary authority
            had ignored relevant materials and relied upon irrelevant
            considerations. The Division Bench, therefore, rightly corrected
            the manifest illegality in the order of dismissal while allowing
            the Letters Patent Appeal.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                              533

           The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


      6.8.     Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in M.V.
               Bijlani v. Union of India and others3 to contend that where
               findings in disciplinary proceedings are based on no evidence or
               are perverse, judicial review under Article 226 is fully available.
      6.9.     Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No. 1 has
               consistently maintained one identity throughout. He has
               been recorded with the Bihar School Examination Board,
               Patna as “Ranjan Kumar” son of Kamta Singh. He appeared
               in the matriculation examination under the same name and
               was thereafter issued mark-sheets, school leaving certificate,
               character certificate, and final matriculation certificate bearing
               identical particulars. Even the voter identity card issued by the
               Election Commission of India reflected the same credentials.
               It was further submitted that on the basis of these genuine
               records, Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Constable in
               Garhwa District (Jharkhand). Thus, there was never any
               attempt to suppress identity or assume a false name. The
               allegation that he served as “Santosh Kumar”, son of Kamta
               Sharma, is wholly baseless and unsupported by evidence.
      6.10. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the respondent was
            dismissed from service on 20.08.2010 and more than thirteen
            years have elapsed. In the facts of the case, where the charge
            itself remains unproved, no liberty ought to be reserved for
            initiating any fresh departmental enquiry at this belated stage.
      6.11. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed that
            the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is just, legal, and
            equitable, and hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed
            as being devoid of merit.
7.    We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
      parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the materials
      placed on record.
8.    This Court by order dated 20.03.2023 granted stay of the operation
      and implementation of the impugned judgment passed by the Division
      Bench of the High Court.


3    (2006) 5 SCC 88
534                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       8.1. Thereafter, by order dated 14.07.2025, this Court impleaded
            the Director General of Police, Bihar, as Respondent No. 2, to
            facilitate an effective adjudication of the controversy arising in
            the present proceedings.
       8.2. Subsequently, by order dated 10.02.2026, this Court impleaded
            Santosh Kumar, Son of Kamta Sharma, resident of Village
            Pitambarpur, Post Pitambarpur, Police Station Ghoshi (Onkari),
            District Jehanabad as Respondent No. 3. By the same order,
            this Court directed Respondent No. 2 to conduct an enquiry
            regarding the identity of two persons namely, Ranjan Kumar
            and Santosh Kumar, who were stated to be residents of the
            same village and whose fathers’ names were similar, namely
            one Kamta Singh and the other Kamta Sharma.
       8.3. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 1, Ranjan Kumar, appeared
            before this Court along with his learned counsel on 17.03.2026.
            This Court directed Respondent No. 1 to appear before
            Respondent No. 2 on 23.03.2026 at 11.00 a.m. in his office,
            where the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, Bihar was
            also directed to remain present. This Court further directed that
            Respondent No. 1 shall accompany the Superintendent of Police,
            Jehanabad, who was to cause an enquiry to be conducted as
            to whether Respondent No. 1 was the same person who had
            worked in Patna, Bihar as well. It was additionally directed that
            a Special Team be constituted by the Superintendent of Police,
            Jehanabad, to verify whether Santosh Kumar, Respondent No.
            3, was a real person and, if so, to trace and locate him, and that
            a report be submitted through the Director General of Police,
            Bihar, to this Court in a sealed cover.
       8.4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Director General
            of Police, Bihar, submitted a detailed enquiry report dated
            11.04.2026. The said report is taken on record. The same shall
            form part of the present judgment and has been duly considered
            along with the entire material available on record.
9.     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.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                      535

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


10. As already stated, it is the specific case of the appellants that the
    charges framed against Respondent No. 1 stood duly proved on
    the basis of the material available on record in the departmental
    proceedings, including photostat copies of the forms, photographs
    and certificates submitted before the Police Department of Bihar,
    as also the forms, photographs, and certificates produced before
    Garhwa Police, Jharkhand, at the time of joining service together
    with reports obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Patna and
    the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. The learned Single Judge
    rightly dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal
    passed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the Appellate
    Authority and the Revisional Authority. However, the Division Bench
    erred in setting aside the said orders by holding that there was no
    evidence to establish that Respondent No. 1 had secured appointment
    with the Bihar Police while continuing in service under the Jharkhand
    Police. Whereas Respondent No. 1 denied the same, by stating
    that there was no legally acceptable material to establish forgery,
    impersonation, or dual employment and therefore, the punishment
    of dismissal was wholly unwarranted. According to him, the Division
    Bench rightly interfered with the findings of the learned Single Judge
    and the departmental authorities.
11. For appreciating the rival contentions, it would be apposite to notice
    the findings concurrently recorded by the authorities below, the
    relevant portions of which are usefully extracted below:

     Superintendent of Police, Garhwa (Disciplinary Authority)
           “…. The delinquent in the query made in his defence
           explanation, has mentioned that all the charges framed
           against him are wrong but has not produced any strong
           evidence in his defence.
           The Conducting Officer, in his opinion, has found the
           delinquent completely guilty for the charges framed
           against him.
           I also perused the case file of these departmental
           proceedings. In the advertisement No. 1/04 of Jharkhand,
           Ranchi, he was appointed in Garhwa Police on dated
           18.05.05, where Police (Constable) No. 659. But, at the
           time, the delinquent was appointed as Reserve Guard
536                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           at Kandi Police Station, on dated 20.12.07, he left on
           compensatory leave for two days and started remaining
           absent. For the charge of remaining absent, vide District
           order No. 1261/07, salary of the delinquent was stopped.
           During the period of absent of the delinquent from Garhwa
           District, he got an appointment as a Constable in the name
           of Santosh Kumar vide Patna District Order No. 10524/2007
           dated 26.12.07 pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2004
           of the State of Bihar, where Constable No. 1331 in Patna
           District Force was allotted. In the above said appointment,
           name of the delinquent is mentioned Santosh Kumar, son
           of Kamta Sharma, resident of Village and post office –
           Pitamberpur, Police Station – Goshi, District – Jahanabad.
           Charges framed against the delinquent are supported by
           the Exhibits available in the case file. Thus, the delinquent,
           by keeping the department in dark, committing forgery and
           cheating and making open violation of the Government
           Service Code got appointment as a Constable in Patna
           District Force by changing his name, which is not only the
           violation of Civil Service Code but can be considered as
           a matter of criminal case
           Hence, I Richard Lakada (I.P.S.) Superintendent of Police,
           Garhwa, in exercise of the powers conferred under Police
           Manual Rule – 824 (which are approved under Section
           7 of the Police Act - 05,861), find Police-659 Ranjan
           Kumar guilty for the above offence and dismiss him from
           the service.”

       Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamu Region (Appellate
       Authority)
           “….
           I perused the charge framed against the delinquent, opinion
           of the Conducting Officer, explanation submitted against
           dismissal from service submitted by the delinquent, Final
           Order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa,
           Appeal representation received from the delinquent,
           para-wise comments sent with reference to the points
           raised in the appeal representation of the delinquent
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           537

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


           by the Superintendent of Police and other documents
           available in the case file. At the time, the delinquent got
           appointment in Garhwa Police on dated 18.05.05 pursuant
           to the advertisement No. 01/04 of the Police Headquarters,
           Jharkhand Ranchi, Garhwa District Police No. 659 was
           allotted to him. But at the time, he was posted in Kandi
           Police station, he left on two days’ compensatory leave
           on dated 20.12.07 and started remaining absent and
           for the charge of being absent from duty, his salary was
           stopped vide Garhwa District Order No. 1261/07. During
           the period of his absent from duty itself, by changing his
           name, he got appointment in the name of Santosh Kumar
           on dated 26.1.07 in Patna District Force pursuant to the
           advertisement No. 01/04 of the State of Bihar. Constable
           No. 1331 was allotted to him in Patna District Force.
           Thus, the delinquent police, by keeping the department
           in dark, committing forgery and cheating, making open
           violation of Civil Service Code, got appointment on the
           post of Constable in Patna District Force by changing
           his name, which is not only the violation of Civil Service
           Code but can be considered a criminal matter as well.
           Therefore, penalty awarded to the delinquent police 659
           Ranjan Kumar by the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa
           is appropriate.
           Therefore, appeal representation received from the
           delinquent police 659 Ranjan Kumar is dismissed.”

     Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranch
     (Revisional Authority)
           “…A letter was written by the Senior Superintendent of
           Police, Patna to the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad
           to conduct an investigation during which, it was found that
           the same person is posted as constable in Garhwa District
           Force in the name of Ranjan Kumar, accordingly the Senior
           Superintendent of Police, Patna. The Superintendent of
           Police, Garhwa was informed about the fact. During the
           investigation in this regard by the Superintendent of Police,
           Garhwa, all the certificates submitted by Police Ranjan
           Kumar for appointment were found to be forged.
538                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            The operation of this departmental action was completed
            as per the prescribed procedure and on the basis of
            the conducting officer being found guilty of misconduct,
            an order of dismissal was passed against him by the
            Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. Against this dismissal
            order, an appeal was submitted by the offender to the
            Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police, which has
            been rejected. The allegation against the offender is very
            serious and he has been found guilty. The offender has not
            presented any clinching facts in his appeal representation
            to prove his innocence, a criminal case is also made
            against the offender. The dismissal order passed against
            the delinquent is in accordance with the seriousness of the
            allegation and is absolutely correct. Therefore, retaining
            the sentence of dismissal from the service passed by the
            Superintendent of Police, Garhwa in this departmental
            proceeding for the above serious allegation, the appeal
            representation of the delinquent is rejected.”
12. The disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the enquiry report,
    documentary exhibits, service records, appointment forms, photographs
    and reports obtained from the concerned authorities at Patna and
    Jehanabad, concluded that the charges of fraud, impersonation,
    forgery, cheating, unauthorised absence from duty and violation of
    service discipline stood proved. A categorical finding was recorded that
    Respondent No. 1, while serving as a Constable in Garhwa District
    Police, clandestinely secured another appointment in the Bihar Police
    under a different identity, namely “Santosh Kumar”, by suppressing his
    existing employment and by using forged or manipulated documents.
       12.1. The Appellate Authority independently reappraised the material
             available on record and concurred with the findings of guilt,
             holding that the punishment of dismissal was commensurate
             with the gravity of the misconduct.
       12.2. The Revisional Authority also affirmed the same, recording
             that the departmental proceedings had been conducted in
             accordance with the prescribed procedure, that the allegations
             were of a grave nature affecting the integrity of the police force,
             and that Respondent No. 1 had failed to place any convincing
             material to establish his innocence.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                      539

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


     12.3. Thus, the findings recorded by all three authorities were
           concurrent findings of fact founded on relevant material
           produced during the enquiry and cannot be characterised as
           conjectural or based on no evidence.
13. The gravamen of the charge against Respondent No. 1 is not a mere
    procedural lapse or unauthorised absence simpliciter. 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, supported by fabricated or
    manipulated documents.
14. The record reveals that Respondent No. 1 first applied for recruitment
    in the Jharkhand Police and thereafter submitted another application
    for appointment in the Bihar Police under the name “Santosh Kumar”.
    The contemporaneous material indicates that the photograph used
    in both applications was of the same person. It further appears that
    while serving in the Jharkhand Police, he absented himself from duty
    and joined the Bihar Police under the alternate identity.
15. Most significantly, pursuant to the directions of this Court, an
    independent enquiry was conducted by the Bihar Police authorities.
    The report dated 11.04.2026 submitted through the Director General
    of Police, Bihar, indicates that forensic comparison of fingerprints,
    biometric records, and photographs established that “Ranjan Kumar”
    and “Santosh Kumar” were one and the same person. Genealogical
    records and electoral rolls further suggested that the variance in the
    father’s name and surname formed part of a manipulated identity
    trail rather than proof of separate persons.
16. The aforesaid report is founded on objective scientific material,
    including fingerprint examination and photographic comparison. Such
    material substantially dislodges the defence of mistaken identity
    or absence of proof that sought to be projected by Respondent
    No. 1.
17. 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
540                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       conscious course of deceit adopted by Respondent No. 1 for
       obtaining employment benefits from two sovereign employers in a
       disciplined force.
18. The submission that some witnesses were not examined, or certain
    documents were not formally proved does not advance the case of
    Respondent No. 1. Departmental enquiries are not criminal trials.
    So long as a fair opportunity is afforded and the conclusion is based
    on relevant material having probative value, the Court would not
    interfere. In the present matter, Respondent No. 1 was served with
    a charge memorandum, furnished with the materials relied upon,
    permitted to submit his defence, supplied with the enquiry report
    and heard at every departmental stage.
19. 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. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision
    of this Court in Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath, in
    Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022 decided on 22.11.2022,
    wherein the limits of judicial review in service disciplinary matters
    have been authoritatively reiterated. The following paragraphs are
    pertinent:
           “15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from
           interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental
           inquiry except in circumstances where such findings
           are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the
           evidence on record, based on no evidence. However,
           if principles of natural justice have been violated or the
           statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there
           are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then
           the courts can certainly interfere.
           16. In the above context, following are the observations
           made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C.
           Chaturvedi (supra):
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                             541

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


                “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
                but a review of the manner in which the decision is
                made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure
                that the individual receives fair treatment and not
                to ensure that the conclusion which the authority
                reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the
                court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges
                of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/
                Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the
                inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
                rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether
                the findings or conclusions are based on some
                evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to
                hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to
                reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
                must be based on some evidence. Neither the
                technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact
                or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary
                proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence
                and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
                disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
                delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/
                Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act
                as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
                and to arrive at its own independent findings on
                the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere
                where the authority held the proceedings against
                the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with
                the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory
                rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
                conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
                authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
                finding be such as no reasonable person would have
                ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with
                the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so
                as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
                13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
                Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority
                has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence
542                                                   [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                    Supreme Court Reports


           or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry,
           the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that
           evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence
           or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be
           canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of
           India v. H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 this Court held
           at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration
           of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority,
           is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face
           of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ
           of certiorari could be issued.
           xxx xxx xxx
           xxx xxx xxx
           18. A review of the above legal position would
           establish that the disciplinary authority, and on
           appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding
           authorities have exclusive power to consider the
           evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are
           invested with the discretion to impose appropriate
           punishment keeping in view the magnitude or
           gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal,
           while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot
           normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty
           and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
           imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
           authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/
           Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief,
           either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority
           to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten
           the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare
           cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent
           reasons in support thereof.”
                                                 [Emphasis laid]

       17. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand
       Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584, a two Judge Bench of this
       Court held as below :
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                             543

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


                “7. 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.
                (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6
                SCC 749, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997)
                7 SCC 463, Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana
                (1999) 5 SCC 762, and High Court of Judicature at
                Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416).
                                                        [Emphasis laid]

           18. In Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and others v.
           Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 569,
           a two Judge Bench of this Court referred to several
           precedents on the Doctrine of Proportionality of the order
           of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and
           held that :
                “21. Once it is found that all the procedural
                requirements have been complied with, the courts
                would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of
                punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee.
                The superior courts only in some cases may invoke
544                                                        [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


            the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an
            employer is found to be within the legal parameters,
            the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when
            the misconduct stands proved.”
       19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the
       High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article
       226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to
       disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court
       in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2
       SCC 610 held thus :
            “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
            disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as
            an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
            reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry
            officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by
            the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by
            the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
            proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
            second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise
            of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
            of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the
            evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
            (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
            (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
            prescribed in that behalf;
            (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice
            in conducting the proceedings;
            (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
            reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
            extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
            (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
            influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
            (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
            arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
            could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                            545

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


                (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed
                to admit the admissible and material evidence;
                (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
                admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the
                finding;
                (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
                13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
                India, the High Court shall not:
                (i) reappreciate the evidence;
                (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
                case the same has been conducted in accordance
                with law;
                (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
                (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
                (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
                findings can be based.
                (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
                appear to be;
                (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless
                it shocks its conscience.”
           20. In Union of India and others v. Ex. Constable Ram
           Karan, (2022) 1 SCC 373, a two Judge Bench of this Court
           made the following pertinent observations :
                “23. The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is
                the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in
                appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment
                to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in
                view the seriousness of the misconduct committed
                by such an employee, it is not open for the courts
                to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary
                authority.
                24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by
                the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to
546                                                       [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


            the conscience of the court, normally the disciplinary
            authority or the appellate authority should be directed
            to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The
            scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment
            is available but with a limited scope. It is only when
            the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly
            disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that
            the courts would frown upon. Even in such a case,
            after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left
            to the disciplinary/ appellate authority to take a call
            and it is not for the court to substitute its decision by
            prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it
            is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court
            might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting
            its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place
            of punishment awarded by the competent authority
            that too after assigning cogent reasons.”
       21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa
       and Others (supra) held that if the order of dismissal is
       based on findings that establish the prima facie guilt of great
       delinquency of the respondent, then the High Court cannot
       direct reconsideration of the punishment imposed. Once the
       gravity of the misdemeanour is established and the inquiry
       conducted is found to be consistent with the prescribed
       rules and reasonable opportunity contemplated under the
       rules, has been afforded to the delinquent employee, then
       the punishment imposed is not open to judicial review by
       the Court. As long as there was some evidence to arrive
       at a conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority did, such
       an order becomes unassailable and the High Court ought
       to forebear from interfering. The above view has been
       expressed in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4
       SCC 618.
       22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding
       authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
       Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine
       the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On
       finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           547

         The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


           the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has
           the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the
           delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the
           misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial
           review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal
           cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its
           own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless
           and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to
           the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High
           Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as
           enumerated in P.Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment
           imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks
           the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then
           the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon
           to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional
           circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should
           the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate
           punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.
           23. Applying the law laid down above to the instant
           case, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to
           have interfered with the findings of fact recorded by the
           Disciplinary Authority.”
20. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
    we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge
    correctly appreciated the limited scope of judicial review and declined
    to substitute judicial opinion in place of the findings recorded in
    the disciplinary proceedings. However, 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.
21. Rule 828 of the Jharkhand Police Manual read with Appendix 49,
    prescribes the procedure for imposition of major penalties. In the
    present case, it is evident that Respondent No. 1 was duly served
    with a charge memorandum, furnished with relevant materials,
    afforded adequate opportunity to submit his defence, participated in
548                                                        [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       the enquiry proceedings, received a copy of the enquiry report, and
       submitted his representation thereon. The requirements of procedural
       fairness and substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure
       thus stand satisfied.
22. Since the allegations levelled against Respondent No. 1 pertain to
    impersonation, fraud, use of forged credentials, dual employment
    in police departments and unauthorised absence, 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.
23. We are further of the considered view that the matter does not rest
    merely within the realm of departmental misconduct. The allegations,
    now reinforced by forensic findings, prima facie disclose the
    commission of cognizable offences such as cheating, impersonation,
    forgery, use of forged documents and furnishing false information to
    public authorities under the Indian Penal Code or the corresponding
    provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as applicable.
24. 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.
25. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director
    General of Police, Jharkhand, shall ensure that the matter is examined
    by the competent jurisdictional police authority and appropriate steps
    be taken, in accordance with law.
26. It is clarified that the observations made herein are for the purpose
    of adjudication of the present service matter and for directing
    examination of the criminal aspect. Any criminal proceedings shall
    be decided on their own merits.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                       549

            The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.


27. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is accordingly set
    aside. The judgment of the learned Single Judge along with the
    order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by
    the appellate authority and the revisional authority stands restored.
     27.1. 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.
28. This Civil Appeal stands allowed on the aforesaid terms. There shall
    be no order as to costs.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain