The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot function as a second appeal in departmental proceedings, especially where concurrent findings of guilt have been recorded by disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities. In a significant ruling, the Court restored the dismissal of a police constable found to have secured dual appointments through forged documents, emphasizing that courts must not reappreciate evidence or substitute their own factual conclusions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the dismissal of Respondent No. 1, Ranjan Kumar, a Constable in the Jharkhand Police, for allegedly securing simultaneous employment in the Bihar Police under a false identity, Santosh Kumar, using forged documents. The allegations involved impersonation, fraud, and deliberate deception of two state governments to draw public salary.
Key Facts
- Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Constable in Jharkhand Police on 18.05.2005 under the name Ranjan Kumar, son of Kamta Singh, with service number 659.
- He was posted at Dhurki Police Station as Reserve Guard and granted compensatory leave from the afternoon of 20.12.2007 to 23.12.2007.
- He failed to rejoin duty after 23.12.2007 and remained absent without authorization.
- On 26.12.2007, during this unauthorised absence, he was appointed as Constable in Bihar Police under the name Santosh Kumar, son of Kamta Sharma, with service number 1331, pursuant to Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007.
- The photograph affixed to both applications was identical.
- The father’s name and surname differed between the two applications: Kamta Singh (Jharkhand) vs. Kamta Sharma (Bihar).
- The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, initiated an enquiry through Onkari Police Station, leading to Memo No. 2512/Go dated 21.06.2008, which concluded that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were the same person.
- A memorandum of charge dated 02.09.2008 was issued to Respondent No. 1, to which he submitted a written defence on 29.09.2008.
- The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 01.07.2010, followed by Respondent No. 1’s reply dated 31.07.2010.
- The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, dismissed him by order dated 20.08.2010.
- The Appellate Authority (Deputy Inspector General of Police) dismissed the appeal by order dated 21.05.2011.
- The Revisional Authority (Director General of Police, Jharkhand) rejected the memorial petition by order dated 06.02.2012.
- Writ Petition (S) No. 1128 of 2012 was filed before the High Court of Jharkhand on 15.03.2012.
- The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 30.10.2015.
- Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2016 was filed, and the Division Bench allowed it by judgment dated 25.08.2022, quashing the dismissal order.
- The Supreme Court granted stay of the Division Bench’s order on 20.03.2023.
- On 14.07.2025, the Director General of Police, Bihar, was impleaded as Respondent No. 2.
- On 10.02.2026, Santosh Kumar, son of Kamta Sharma, was impleaded as Respondent No. 3.
- On 17.03.2026, the Supreme Court directed Respondent No. 1 to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, Bihar, for identity verification.
- A Special Team was constituted to trace Santosh Kumar and verify whether he was a real person.
- On 11.04.2026, the Director General of Police, Bihar, submitted a forensic report concluding that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were the same person, based on fingerprint and biometric comparison.
Procedural History
- 18.05.2005: Appointment as Constable, Jharkhand Police (Ranjan Kumar)
- 20.12.2007: Grant of compensatory leave
- 23.12.2007: Failure to rejoin duty
- 26.12.2007: Appointment as Constable, Bihar Police (Santosh Kumar)
- 24.04.2008: Notice issued by SSP, Patna
- 21.06.2008: Enquiry report by Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad
- 02.09.2008: Memorandum of charge issued
- 29.09.2008: Written defence submitted
- 01.07.2010: Enquiry report submitted
- 31.07.2010: Reply to enquiry report
- 20.08.2010: Dismissal order by Superintendent of Police, Garhwa
- 21.05.2011: Appellate Authority dismisses appeal
- 06.02.2012: Revisional Authority rejects memorial petition
- 15.03.2012: Writ Petition filed before High Court
- 30.10.2015: Single Judge dismisses writ petition
- 25.08.2022: Division Bench allows LPA, quashes dismissal
- 20.03.2023: Supreme Court grants stay of Division Bench order
- 14.07.2025: DG, Bihar impleaded as Respondent No. 2
- 10.02.2026: Santosh Kumar impleaded as Respondent No. 3
- 17.03.2026: Court directs identity verification in Bihar
- 11.04.2026: Forensic report submitted by DG, Bihar
- 08.05.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment
The Parties' Positions
Appellants (State of Jharkhand & Others): Contended that the disciplinary proceedings were fair, the charges were proved by documentary and forensic evidence, and the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence. They relied on Union of India v. Subrata Nath and B.C. Chaturvedi to argue that judicial review cannot substitute factual findings.
Respondent No. 1 (Ranjan Kumar): Argued that no material witness from Bihar was examined, documents were not formally proved, and the enquiry was based on suspicion. He claimed he had always used the name Ranjan Kumar and that Santosh Kumar was a separate person. Relied on M.V. Bijlani to assert that findings based on no evidence are reviewable.
Respondent No. 2 (DG, Bihar): Supported the appellants, confirming the fraud against both states.
Respondent No. 3 (Santosh Kumar): Impleaded to verify identity; forensic report concluded he was the same person as Ranjan Kumar.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought restoration of the dismissal order dated 20.08.2010, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment dated 25.08.2022, and quashing the Bihar Police appointment of Santosh Kumar. The respondent sought to uphold the Division Bench’s order and avoid any fresh proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, could set aside a dismissal order in a departmental proceeding by reappreciating evidence and rejecting concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities, despite the absence of any violation of natural justice or statutory procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in strict compliance with Rule 828 of the Jharkhand Police Manual and Appendix 49. The charge memorandum, enquiry report, and all supporting documents were furnished to the respondent. The findings of guilt were based on documentary evidence, including identical photographs, conflicting parentage details, and official communications from Bihar authorities. They emphasized that departmental proceedings are not bound by the Indian Evidence Act and that the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Subrata Nath and B.C. Chaturvedi to assert that courts cannot act as appellate forums. They contended that the Division Bench’s interference was a clear overreach, as it reappreciated evidence without identifying any procedural flaw.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the enquiry was vitiated by non-examination of material witnesses from Bihar, including the authors of the reports relied upon. He claimed that mere production of documents without proof of their authenticity violated the principles of natural justice. He contended that the allegation of dual employment was inherently improbable and unsupported by independent evidence. He relied on M.V. Bijlani to argue that findings based on no evidence are subject to judicial review. He further asserted that the lapse of over thirteen years since dismissal rendered any fresh proceedings unjust.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the legal principles governing judicial review in departmental proceedings. It reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 226 is not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings, but to ensure procedural fairness and legality. The Court observed that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority had all independently concluded that the respondent had committed fraud by securing dual appointments under false identities.
"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 noted that the respondent was provided with a full opportunity to defend himself: he received the charge sheet, submitted a written defence, was furnished with the enquiry report, and made representations at every stage. The Court held that the failure to examine witnesses does not automatically vitiate proceedings where the documentary evidence is cogent and corroborated.
Crucially, the Court relied on the forensic report submitted pursuant to its own directions, which established through fingerprint and biometric analysis that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were one and the same person. This objective scientific evidence decisively undermined the respondent’s claim of mistaken identity.
The Court further held that the Division Bench erred in treating the writ appeal as a forum for re-evaluating evidence. It cited Union of India v. Subrata Nath and B.C. Chaturvedi to emphasize that courts must not interfere unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or tainted by malafide or procedural violation. The Court concluded that the dismissal order was neither arbitrary nor unsupported by evidence.
The Court also observed that the misconduct involved not merely a breach of service rules but prima facie offences under the Indian Penal Code or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including cheating, forgery, and impersonation. It directed the Director Generals of Police of Jharkhand and Bihar to initiate criminal proceedings.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench’s judgment dated 25.08.2022. The dismissal order dated 20.08.2010, as affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, was restored. The Court quashed Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 and set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 3, Santosh Kumar, as a Constable in the Bihar Police. The Director Generals of Police of Jharkhand and Bihar were directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent for cheating, forgery, and impersonation. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Review Cannot Substitute Factual Findings
- Practitioners must argue that High Courts cannot reappreciate evidence in service matters unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
- The burden is on the employee to show procedural violation, malafide, or arbitrariness - not merely disagreement with the outcome.
- Concurrent findings by three authorities create a strong presumption of correctness.
Forensic Evidence Trumps Oral Denials
- In identity disputes, forensic evidence (fingerprints, biometrics, photographs) carries decisive weight over self-serving affidavits.
- Courts may direct independent investigations under Article 142 to ascertain truth.
- Denial of impersonation without scientific rebuttal is insufficient to overturn departmental findings.
Criminal Liability Follows Service Dismissal
- Fraudulent entry into public service, especially police forces, triggers potential criminal prosecution.
- Dismissal orders must be accompanied by directions to initiate criminal proceedings where elements of IPC or BNS are prima facie made out.
- Delay in initiating criminal proceedings does not bar prosecution if the misconduct is established.
