Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Supreme Court Reinstates Constable Dismissed for Alleged Date of Birth Falsification

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a latest judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the reinstatement of Ram Lal, a former constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, who was dismissed from service following allegations of falsifying his date of birth in educational documents. The bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a nuanced verdict that underscores the intricate balance between departmental enquiries and criminal proceedings in cases of employee misconduct.

The appellant, Ram Lal, faced severe charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), accused of altering his date of birth from 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in his 8th standard marksheet. This action was claimed to be an attempt to meet the age criteria for recruitment. Following a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service in 2004. However, in a subsequent criminal trial, he was acquitted by the appellate judge, who found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.

In their decision, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence and witness testimonies from both the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial. The Court observed, “The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.” This observation highlights the necessity for judicial bodies to delve beyond surface-level findings and consider the deeper implications and integrity of evidence presented.

The Court’s analysis revealed that the original 8th class marksheet, which was central to the case, showed no alteration in the date of birth. This critical piece of evidence was overlooked in the departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court, recognizing the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, nonetheless found the enquiry vitiated by the omission of crucial evidence.

Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivering the judgment, stated, “We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, ‘not proved’ – in fact, the charge even stood ‘disproved’ by the very prosecution evidence.”

As a result, the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of Ram Lal with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional promotions. This decision sets a significant precedent in cases where employees face parallel departmental and criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of thorough and fair consideration of all evidence.

Date of Decision: 4 December 2023

RAM LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Similar News