The Supreme Court of India restored dismissal of a Bihar Police constable accused of using a forged identity while simultaneously serving in the Jharkhand Police, observing that fraud, impersonation and dishonesty in public employment violate the integrity, discipline and trust expected from police personnel.
The Supreme Court has reinstated the dismissal of a police constable who was allegedly employed in the Bihar Police using a forged identity while he was simultaneously serving in the Jharkhand Police. The Court held that the charges against him relating to fraud, impersonation, forgery, cheating, and breach of service discipline were established through departmental and forensic investigations.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan set aside a decision of the Jharkhand High Court, which had earlier quashed the disciplinary authority’s order dismissing constable Ranjan Kumar from the Jharkhand Police.
Factual Backgrounds:
The matter arose from allegations that the constable entered Bihar Police service in 2007 by taking the name “Santosh Kumar,” while continuing his employment in Jharkhand Police under his original identity.
As per the facts placed before the Supreme Court, Ranjan Kumar joined the Jharkhand Police as a constable in May 2005. In December 2007, he reportedly availed two days’ leave and used that time to secure appointment in Bihar Police under a different name, along with altered personal particulars.
Shortly after joining Bihar Police in the Patna district, he allegedly stopped reporting for duty in January 2008. His unexplained absence prompted an internal inquiry, during which the authorities found that the identities of “Ranjan Kumar” and “Santosh Kumar” were allegedly that of the same person.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the departmental inquiry conducted by Jharkhand Police concluded that the charges were proved. These included:
- fraud and impersonation,
- forgery and cheating,
- unauthorized absence from duty, and
- violation of service discipline.
The Court observed:
“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,”
According to the record, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar Police to conduct a detailed investigation into the claims relating to forged identities and dual employment.
The subsequent inquiry reportedly found that the photographs furnished in both recruitment applications were of the same individual. The Court also relied on forensic verification of fingerprints, biometric data, and photographs, concluding that “Ranjan Kumar” and “Santosh Kumar” were the same person.
Relying on Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath, wherein the limits of judicial review in service disciplinary matters have been authoritatively reiterated, the court said,
“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.”
The Bench also noted that genealogical details and electoral rolls suggested that discrepancies in the father’s name and surname were part of a manipulated identity trail rather than evidence of two distinct individuals.
It remarked:
“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,”
Based on the findings, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct dismissal of the constable from his Bihar Police service as well.
It said,
“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”.
The Court said,
“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,”
The Court held that allowing such a person to continue in police service would seriously weaken discipline and public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
It further added that the case was not confined to only departmental misconduct, but also indicated the commission of serious criminal offences.
It said,
“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,”
Also Read: Jharkhand High Court Lawyers Protest Appointment of ‘Outsider’ Judges
In view of these conclusions, the Supreme Court directed both Bihar Police and Jharkhand Police authorities to examine the criminal aspects of the case and initiate appropriate legal action in accordance with law.
The Court emphasised that honesty and integrity are essential in public service, particularly within disciplined forces like the police.
The Court observed,
“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,”
The decision is being treated as an important reaffirmation that public employment obtained through fraud or misrepresentation cannot be protected under law especially in police and other uniformed services where institutional discipline and public trust are critical.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Ranjan Kumar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE