Summary
The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of a Jharkhand Police constable found in a departmental enquiry to have absented himself and secured a second appointment in the Bihar Police under another name using forged credentials. It held that the High Court Division Bench exceeded the limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence and upsetting concurrent findings. A forensic enquiry ordered by the Court confirmed the two identities were one person. The Court directed the police to examine criminal action and, under Article 142, quashed the Bihar appointment.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench, in a Letters Patent Appeal arising from writ proceedings, could reappreciate the evidence and set aside concurrent findings of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities on the ground of no evidence.
- Whether non-examination of some witnesses and absence of formal proof of documents vitiated the departmental enquiry.
- Whether dismissal was a proportionate penalty and what further directions were warranted.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Subrata Nath, B.C. Chaturvedi and P. Gunasekaran, the Court held that in judicial review of disciplinary action the High Court does not reappreciate evidence, examine adequacy or reliability of evidence, or disturb findings supported by some legal evidence, the standard being preponderance of probabilities; the Division Bench breached these limits. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22)
- Rule 828 read with Appendix 49, Jharkhand Police ManualThe Court noted that these prescribe the procedure for major penalties and found substantial compliance: the constable was served a charge memorandum with the relied-on material, filed a defence, took part in the enquiry, received the enquiry report and made a representation. (¶ 21)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked to do complete justice by quashing the Patna District order appointing the same person as a constable in the Bihar Police under the name Santosh Kumar. (¶ 27.1)
Held
- The findings of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, based on application forms, photographs, certificates and reports from the Patna and Jehanabad police, were concurrent findings of fact founded on relevant material and could not be called conjectural or based on no evidence. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3)
- Departmental enquiries are not criminal trials; non-examination of some witnesses or lack of formal proof of documents does not vitiate the enquiry where a fair opportunity was given and the conclusion rests on relevant material of probative value. (¶ 18)
- In exercising writ jurisdiction over disciplinary action, the High Court cannot sit in appeal and reappreciate evidence where the material reasonably supports the departmental case; the Division Bench transgressed these limits, while the Single Judge had correctly declined to interfere. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The forensic enquiry report of the Bihar Police, ordered by the Supreme Court, establishing through fingerprint, biometric and photographic comparison that the two named persons were the same individual, substantially displaced the defence of mistaken identity. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Fraud at the point of entry into service strikes at the root of public employment, and police personnel must maintain the highest integrity; dismissal for impersonation, forged credentials, dual employment and unauthorised absence, after a fair enquiry, was proportionate. (¶¶ 17, 22)
- As the allegations, reinforced by forensic findings, prima facie disclosed cognizable offences such as cheating, impersonation and forgery, the Court directed the Directors General of Police of Bihar and Jharkhand to have the matter examined by the competent police authority, clarifying that any criminal case would be decided on its own merits. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge's judgment and the dismissal order, as affirmed in appeal and revision, restored. DGPs of Bihar and Jharkhand to ensure examination of criminal action by the competent police authority. Under Article 142, Patna District Order No. 10524 of 2007 dated 26.12.2007 quashed and the Bihar Police appointment in the name of Santosh Kumar set aside. No costs.