The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Jharkhand High Court Division Bench judgment that had reinstated a police constable dismissed for securing simultaneous employment in the Bihar and Jharkhand police forces using forged credentials. A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan held that public employment, particularly in disciplined forces, cannot be converted into an “instrument of fraud.”
The Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the respondent’s appointment in the Bihar Police and directed both the Jharkhand and Bihar Director Generals of Police to initiate criminal proceedings for cheating and impersonation.
Background of the Case
Respondent No. 1, Ranjan Kumar, was appointed as a Constable in the Jharkhand Police on May 18, 2005. In December 2007, while serving at Dhurki Police Station, he took two days of compensatory leave but failed to rejoin duty.
According to the appellants (State of Jharkhand), during this period of unauthorized absence, Kumar allegedly secured a second appointment as a Constable in the Bihar Police under the name “Santosh Kumar” using forged certificates. Investigations by the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, revealed that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were the same person. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated in Jharkhand, leading to his dismissal on August 20, 2010.
While a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court upheld the dismissal in 2015, a Division Bench later reversed this decision in 2022, concluding there was “no evidence” to establish the dual appointment. The State of Jharkhand then moved the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Parties
The State of Jharkhand argued that the Division Bench erred by reappreciating evidence in a departmental matter. They contended that the charges were proved via photographs, application forms, and reports from Bihar authorities. They relied on State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) to assert that strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiries.
The State of Bihar supported Jharkhand, noting that the photograph affixed to the Bihar application matched the one in Jharkhand records, despite different names and parentage being used.
Respondent No. 1 (Ranjan Kumar) argued that the case was one of “no evidence.” He claimed no material witnesses from Bihar were examined, denying him the right to cross-examination. He maintained that he was “Ranjan Kumar” and the allegation of being “Santosh Kumar” was baseless. He cited M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2006) to argue that judicial review is available when findings are perverse.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, it had directed a fresh enquiry by the Bihar Police. A forensic report dated April 11, 2026, established through fingerprints and biometric records that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were indeed the same individual.
The Court observed:
“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.”
Regarding the scope of judicial review, the Court reiterated the principles from Union of India v. Subrata Nath (2022) and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), stating that High Courts should not act as appellate authorities in disciplinary proceedings.
The Bench remarked:
“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.”
The Court further held that the Division Bench “clearly transgressed the settled parameters of judicial review by reappreciating the evidence.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench’s judgment. It restored the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority.
To ensure complete justice, the Court invoked Article 142 to:
- Quash the Patna District Order (26.12.2007) regarding the appointment of “Santosh Kumar.”
- Direct the DGPs of Bihar and Jharkhand to initiate criminal proceedings for offences including cheating and forgery.
The Court concluded:
“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.”
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7364 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date: May 8, 2026
