Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that fraud committed at the threshold of entry into service strikes at the very root of public employment and warrants the highest level of disciplinary action.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that members of a disciplined force are expected to maintain an exemplary standard of integrity, and those securing jobs through dual identities cannot be allowed to go "scot-free."

The case involved a constable in the Jharkhand Police, Ranjan Kumar, who was appointed in 2005. It was alleged that while serving in Jharkhand, he remained unauthorisedly absent and clandestinely secured another appointment in the Bihar Police under the assumed name ‘Santosh Kumar’ using forged certificates. Following a departmental enquiry that established his dual identity, he was dismissed from service in 2010. While a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court upheld the dismissal, a Division Bench later set it aside, termed it a case of "no evidence," and ordered his reinstatement.

The primary question before the court was whether the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded the settled limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence in a departmental matter. The Court also considered whether the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings requires the examination of every material witness as in a criminal trial, and the legal consequences of fraud in securing public employment.

High Court Cannot Act As An Appellate Court In Disciplinary Matters

The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench had transgressed its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence that had already been concurrently accepted by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities. The bench emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than the correctness of the decision itself.

Citing the precedent in Union of India v. Subrata Nath (2022), the Court reiterated that findings of fact recorded by a disciplinary authority are not to be interfered with as a matter of course. It observed that if an enquiry was held by a competent officer according to the prescribed procedure and followed the principles of natural justice, the courts must refrain from substituting their own opinion for that of the authorities.

"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."

Standard Of Proof In Departmental Enquiries Is Preponderance Of Probabilities

The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the enquiry was vitiated because material witnesses from Bihar were not examined. It clarified that departmental enquiries are not criminal trials and do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the applicable standard is the "preponderance of probabilities," where any material that is logically probative is admissible.

The bench relied on State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) to underscore that technical rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiries. It noted that the respondent was provided with all relevant documents, including the Bihar enquiry reports, and was given a full opportunity to defend himself, thereby satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

"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."

Forensic Evidence Established Premeditated Deceit

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court had directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, to conduct an independent enquiry into the respondent’s identity. The forensic report, which included fingerprint examinations and biometric comparisons, conclusively proved that ‘Ranjan Kumar’ and ‘Santosh Kumar’ were the same individual.

The Court observed that this scientific material substantially dislodged the respondent's defence of mistaken identity. It characterized the respondent's actions as a "conscious course of deceit" intended to obtain employment benefits from two sovereign employers simultaneously. The bench noted that such conduct is wholly detrimental to the credibility of the police force.

"The variance in the father’s name and surname formed part of a manipulated identity trail rather than proof of separate persons."

Fraud Vitiates Public Employment At The Threshold

The Court emphasized that integrity and honesty are non-negotiable for those entrusted with enforcing the law. It held that the order of dismissal was a proportionate and justified administrative measure. Allowing an individual who secured entry through deception to remain in service would erode public confidence and the rule of law.

Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court also quashed the respondent’s appointment in the Bihar Police to ensure "complete justice." It further directed the DGPs of both Jharkhand and Bihar to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent for offences including cheating, forgery, and furnishing false information to public authorities.

"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."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court restored the original order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. Additionally, the Court quashed the respondent’s second appointment in Bihar and ordered the initiation of criminal proceedings, affirming that the "consequences, in law, shall follow."

Date of Decision: May 8, 2026