The State of Jharkhand & Orsv.Ranjan Kumar & Ors

Legal Analysis: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ranjan Kumar & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 466
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan (Division Bench)
Date of Decision: May 8, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court judgment setting aside dismissal order in disciplinary proceedings.

Synopsis of the Judgment

A constable in Jharkhand Police, while serving, took leave and remained unauthorisedly absent. During that period, he secured another appointment as a constable in Bihar Police under a different name (“Santosh Kumar”) using forged certificates. After a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority all confirmed the dismissal. The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition. However, the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal allowed his appeal and set aside the dismissal. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal, holding that the Division Bench exceeded the limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence. The Court also directed criminal investigation into the forgery and impersonation and quashed the appointment in Bihar Police under Article 142.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ranjan Kumar & Ors.

• Civil Appeal No.: 7364 of 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 6111 of 2023)

• Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan (Division Bench)

• Date of Decision: May 8, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 466

• Appeal From: Judgment and order dated 25.08.2022 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 74 of 2016

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 (special leave to appeal), Article 142 (complete justice), Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction)

• Jharkhand Police Manual: Rule 828 read with Appendix 49 (procedure for major penalties)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023): Offences of cheating, impersonation, forgery, using forged documents, furnishing false information

• Service Jurisprudence: Principles of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings

Key Precedents Cited

1. State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 – In domestic enquiries, strict rules of evidence do not apply; any material logically probative is admissible.

2. M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 88 – In departmental proceedings, the material must be legally admissible and reliable; findings based on no evidence are vitiated.

3. Union of India v. Subrata Nath (2022) (Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940/2022, decided on 22.11.2022) – Courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless patently perverse, based on no evidence, or violation of natural justice.

4. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 – Courts will not act as appellate court in disciplinary matters; findings based on evidence are not interfered with on ground of adequacy or reliability.

5. Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 – Enumerated grounds for interference (lack of competent authority, violation of natural justice, perverse finding, no evidence, etc.) and grounds not to interfere (reappreciation, adequacy, reliability, proportionality unless shocking conscience).

6. Union of India v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan (2022) 1 SCC 373 – Disciplinary authority has exclusive power to decide punishment; courts cannot usurp that function; interference only if punishment shocks conscience.

3. Relevant Facts

• Respondent No. 1 (Ranjan Kumar) was appointed as Constable in Jharkhand Police on 18.05.2005.

• On 20.12.2007, he was granted compensatory leave for two days (till 23.12.2007). He did not rejoin duty and remained unauthorisedly absent.

• During this absence, he allegedly secured appointment as Constable in Patna District, Bihar Police under the name “Santosh Kumar” (son of Kamta Sharma) vide order dated 26.12.2007, based on forged certificates.

• He abandoned duty from Patna Police on 06.01.2008.

• Enquiry by Bihar Police revealed that the same person was serving as Ranjan Kumar in Jharkhand and as Santosh Kumar in Bihar. Photographs, fingerprints, and other materials matched.

• A memorandum of charge was issued to Respondent No. 1 on 02.09.2008; he submitted his defence on 29.09.2008.

• Enquiry Officer submitted report on 01.07.2010, finding charges proved. Respondent No. 1 was given a copy and submitted a reply.

• Disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Garhwa) passed order dated 20.08.2010 dismissing him from service.

• Appeal to Deputy Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 21.05.2011; memorial before Director General of Police was rejected on 06.02.2012.

• Respondent No. 1 filed W.P.(S) No. 1128/2012 before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed it on 30.10.2015.

• He filed L.P.A. No. 74/2016. The Division Bench allowed the appeal on 25.08.2022, setting aside the dismissal orders.

• The State of Jharkhand appealed to the Supreme Court.

• During the pendency of the appeal, this Court directed an independent enquiry by Bihar Police. The Director General of Police, Bihar submitted a report dated 11.04.2026, based on fingerprint comparison, biometric records, and photographs, confirming that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were the same person.

4. Issues

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in a Letters Patent Appeal, exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by reappreciating the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and setting aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority, and the learned Single Judge?

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct of securing dual employment through forged credentials and impersonation?

3. Whether this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the fraudulent appointment in Bihar Police and direct criminal investigation?

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters (Paras 19-22):

The Court reiterated the settled principles from P. Gunasekaran, Subrata Nath, and Nemi Chand Nalwaya. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court (or the Supreme Court) is not an appellate court. It cannot reappreciate evidence, go into the adequacy or reliability of evidence, or substitute its own findings unless the findings are based on no evidence, are patently perverse, or there is a violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error. In the present case, the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the documentary evidence and holding that the charge was not proved, despite consistent findings by all departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge.

B. Departmental enquiry – standard of proof and evidence (Paras 17-18):

The Court held that the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to departmental enquiries. Material that is logically probative and has been furnished to the delinquent is admissible. In this case, the enquiry was based on contemporaneous official communications, photographs, application forms, and reports from Patna and Jehanabad police authorities. The independent enquiry report obtained during the Supreme Court proceedings, which included forensic fingerprint comparison, further corroborated the charges.

C. Gravity of misconduct (Para 22):

The Court observed that a police officer securing employment through forged documents and impersonation strikes at the root of public confidence in the police force. Such conduct is not a minor lapse but a grave fraud on two State governments. The punishment of dismissal was proportionate and justified.

D. Concurrent findings and the role of the Division Bench (Paras 12-13, 20):

The disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority had all concurrently found Respondent No. 1 guilty. The learned Single Judge upheld those findings. The Division Bench was in error in setting aside these concurrent findings without any of the recognised grounds for interference (no evidence, perversity, violation of natural justice). The judgment of the Division Bench was accordingly set aside.

E. Power under Article 142 – quashing of fraudulent appointment (Paras 27-27.1):

To do complete justice, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and quashed Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007, thereby setting aside the appointment of “Santosh Kumar” as Constable in Bihar Police.

F. Direction for criminal investigation (Paras 23-25):

The Court noted that the conduct prima facie constituted cognizable offences (cheating, impersonation, forgery, using forged documents). The Court directed the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand to ensure that the matter is examined by the competent jurisdictional police authority and appropriate steps be taken in accordance with law. It clarified that these observations are only for the purpose of directing examination of the criminal aspect and that any criminal proceedings shall be decided on their own merits.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Limits of Letters Patent Appeal in service matters: A Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge’s order in a disciplinary writ petition is also exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, not appellate jurisdiction over the department’s decision. It cannot reappreciate evidence any more than the Single Judge could. The parameters of judicial review remain the same – perversity, no evidence, violation of natural justice.

• Independent enquiry during Supreme Court proceedings: This Court may, in exercise of its powers under Article 136, direct an independent factual enquiry through a State agency (here, Bihar Police) and consider its report along with the record to determine the correctness of departmental findings.

• Article 142 can be invoked to quash a fraudulent appointment even when the original administrative order was not directly challenged before the Court, if such quashing is essential to do complete justice in the service dispute.

• In disciplinary proceedings, concurrent findings of fact by three departmental authorities and a Single Judge of the High Court are entitled to great weight; the Division Bench should not interfere unless a clear case of perversity or no evidence is made out.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

The Court carefully examined the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority, and found that each had independently assessed the material. The disciplinary authority noted that Respondent No. 1 had failed to produce any strong evidence in his defence, and the exhibits on record (appointment forms, photographs, reports) established that he had secured appointment in Bihar Police under a different identity while on unauthorised absence. The appellate authority confirmed this after perusal of the case file. The revisional authority also affirmed.

The Court contrasted this with the Division Bench’s reasoning, which held that the charge was not proved because no witness from Bihar was examined. The Supreme Court held that this was a classic case of reappreciation of evidence. The Court also noted that the independent enquiry report obtained during the pendency of the appeal, which included fingerprint comparison and genealogical verification, conclusively established the identity.

The Court then applied the principles from P. Gunasekaran and held that the High Court’s interference was not justified because: (i) the enquiry was held by a competent authority; (ii) the procedure prescribed was followed; (iii) there was no violation of natural justice (the respondent received show cause notice, documents, enquiry report, and opportunity to reply); (iv) the findings were based on evidence (contemporaneous official documents and the independent enquiry report); (v) the conclusion was not perverse; and (vi) the punishment of dismissal did not shock the conscience considering the gravity of the misconduct.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment firmly restates the limited scope of judicial review in service disciplinary matters, which is particularly important given the tendency of High Courts to re‑evaluate evidence in Letters Patent Appeals. The distinction between appellate jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction is clarified. The use of Article 142 to quash the fraudulent appointment (even though not directly challenged) is a pragmatic measure to prevent the respondent from continuing in service in another State based on the same fraud. The direction for criminal investigation is necessary given the serious nature of forgery and impersonation.

Potential concerns: The Division Bench’s order was set aside; however, the Court did not explicitly mention that the charges were proved beyond a reasonable doubt – which is not required in departmental proceedings. The criminal investigation direction may lead to parallel proceedings, but that is a necessary consequence. The judgment could have more explicitly addressed the argument that no witness from Bihar was examined, but the Court held that documentary evidence (including the independent enquiry report and the respondent’s own conduct) was sufficient in a domestic enquiry.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by employers (especially government departments) to defend dismissal orders where the employee has been found guilty of fraud or impersonation. It warns High Courts not to interfere in disciplinary matters unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The direction for criminal investigation will also lead to more rigorous action against public servants who use forged documents to secure employment.

9. Final Outcome

• Civil Appeal allowed.

• Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dated 25.08.2022 in L.P.A. No. 74 of 2016 set aside.

• Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1128 of 2012 restored.

• Order of the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Garhwa) dated 20.08.2010 dismissing Respondent No. 1 from service, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority (21.05.2011) and Revisional Authority (06.02.2012), stands restored.

• Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 is quashed, and the appointment of Respondent No. 3 (“Santosh Kumar”) as Constable in Bihar Police is set aside.

• The Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand are directed to ensure that the matter is examined by the competent jurisdictional police authority and appropriate steps be taken in accordance with law for the cognizable offences disclosed.

• No order as to costs.

• Pending applications disposed of.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• For employers (State Governments, PSUs, departments): When an employee is dismissed after a fair disciplinary enquiry and the findings are based on some evidence, you can successfully resist a writ petition or Letters Patent Appeal by citing this judgment. Emphasise that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence. If the employee has secured dual employment or used forged documents, the dismissal will be upheld.

• For employees facing departmental proceedings: If you argue that witnesses were not examined or documents were not formally proved, note that in departmental enquiries the strict rules of evidence do not apply. However, if the disciplinary authority relies on no evidence at all or violates natural justice, you may still succeed – but mere technical objections about non‑examination of witnesses will not help after this judgment.

• For High Courts (Single Judges and Division Benches): While disposing of writ petitions or Letters Patent Appeals against disciplinary orders, adhere strictly to the parameters laid down in P. Gunasekaran. Do not reappreciate evidence. If findings are based on some evidence and the procedure is fair, the court should not interfere. A Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent Appeal does not sit as a court of first appeal over the departmental decision; it exercises the same limited supervisory jurisdiction as the Single Judge.

11. Court Lines

“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 mala fides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.” (Para 19, quoting Union of India v. Subrata Nath)

“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 see only whether: … (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; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence.” (Para 19, quoting P. Gunasekaran)

“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.” (Para 20)

“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.” (Para 24)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

• For the employer / State: In similar cases of dual employment or forged credentials, ensure that the departmental enquiry collects and relies on contemporaneous documents (appointment forms, photographs, letters from other States). If the employee denies identity, seek a court‑directed independent enquiry (as done here). Cite this judgment to argue that the High Court should not reappreciate evidence. Also, request the court to exercise Article 142 to quash any fraudulent appointment in another State to prevent the employee from continuing to benefit from the fraud.

• For the employee (delinquent): If you face a charge of impersonation or dual employment based on documentary evidence, do not rely solely on the non‑examination of witnesses. You must produce positive evidence to rebut the documents (e.g., independent identity proof, witnesses to show that you are not the same person). After this judgment, a mere procedural objection that “no witness from the other State was examined” will not succeed if there is other probative material.

• For courts: When a Letters Patent Appeal is filed against a Single Judge’s order in a disciplinary matter, first determine whether the Single Judge correctly applied the Gunasekaran parameters. If yes, the Division Bench should not interfere. If the Division Bench nonetheless reappreciates evidence, the Supreme Court will set it aside, as in this case. Also, if the misconduct involves forgery and impersonation, the court may suo motu direct criminal investigation and use Article 142 to quash the fraudulent appointment.