Service law – Dismissal from service – Respondent No.1 secured appointment as a Constable under the name “SK” with Bihar Police while continuing in service as a Constable in the Jharkhand Police under the name “RK” through fabricated documents and thereafter remained unauthorisedly absent from service – Memorandum of charge issued in view of the serious irregularities committed to which respondent no.1 submitted written statement of defence – Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report – Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police dismissed respondent No.1 from service – Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority that the charges of fraud, impersonation, forgery, cheating, unauthorised absence from duty and violation of service discipline stood proved – Single Judge of the High Court upheld the dismissal, however, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the same – Correctness:
Held: Member of the police force expected to maintain the highest degree of integrity, honesty and discipline – Fraud at the threshold of entry into service strikes at the very root of public employment – On facts, material available goes far beyond mere suspicion and reasonably establishes a conscious course of deceit adopted by respondent No.1 for obtaining employment benefits from two sovereign employers in a disciplined force – Single Judge correctly appreciated the limited scope of judicial review and declined to substitute judicial opinion in place of the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings – However, the Division Bench, clearly transgressed the settled parameters of judicial review by reappreciating the evidence and disturbing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority – Such approach cannot be countenanced in law – Respondent No.1 was duly served with a charge memorandum, furnished with relevant materials, afforded adequate opportunity to submit his defence, participated in the enquiry proceedings, received copy of the enquiry report, and submitted his representation thereon – Requirements of procedural fairness and substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure thus stand satisfied – Since the allegations levelled against respondent no.1 pertain to impersonation, fraud, use of forged credentials, dual employment in police departments and unauthorised absence, the continuance of such an employee in service would be wholly detrimental to institutional discipline, public confidence, and the credibility of the police force – Order of dismissal passed against respondent no.1 was a proportionate and justified administrative measure arising out of a fair and lawful enquiry – Thus, the Division Bench not justified in reappreciating the evidence and setting aside the punishment imposed – Allegations, reinforced by forensic findings, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences such as cheating, impersonation, forgery, use of forged documents and furnishing false information to public authorities – 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 – In these circumstances, while restoring the disciplinary action, it is both necessary and appropriate to direct initiation of criminal proceedings in accordance with law – Matter to be examined by the competent jurisdictional police authority and appropriate steps be taken, in accordance with law – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside, and that of the Single Judge along with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by appellate authority and revisional authority stands restored – Patna District Order quashed, and appointment of respondent No.3, “SK”, as Constable in the Bihar Police set aside – Jharkhand Police Manual. [Paras 17, 19, 20-27.1]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.