India’s Supreme Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a police constable who was found to have secured employment with the Bihar Police under a false identity while serving with the Jharkhand Police, according to a Bar and Bench report.
A bench comprising Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan set aside the decision of the Jharkhand High Court which set aside the disciplinary authority’s decision to remove constable Ranjan Kumar from service.
The judgment was delivered while hearing an appeal filed by the Jharkhand government against the decision of a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court.
According to the details of the case, Ranjan Kumar joined the Jharkhand Police as a constable in May 2005. He went on a two-day leave in December 2007 and subsequently got employment with the Bihar Police under the assumed identity of Santosh Kumar.
He later stopped reporting for duty in Patna in January 2008. An investigation launched into his prolonged absence reportedly revealed that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were in fact the same person.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The court noted that Ranjan Kumar had taken two days leave from the Jharkhand Police in 2007 and had joined the Bihar Police under the false name of Santosh Kumar during that period. He subsequently remained absent from his original location without permission.
Read also | Heat wave forces schools in Jharkhand, UP, Odisha to adjust school timetables
India’s Supreme Court said charges of fraud, impersonation, forgery, cheating, unauthorized absence from duty and breach of service discipline were leveled against the constable during a ministerial inquiry led by the Jharkhand police, the report said.
“The charges relate to deliberate and premeditated fraud on two state police forces, namely the states of Jharkhand and Bihar, by securing or attempting to secure public employment under two different names with inconsistent parentage details, supported by fabricated or manipulated documents,” it said.
Read also | SC grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Kher in defamation case
When the case came before the apex court, it directed the Bihar police to investigate the allegations regarding the use of fake identities.
The investigation revealed that the same photograph was used in both job applications. Further forensic examination of fingerprints, biometrics and photographs confirmed that ‘Ranjan Kumar’ and ‘Santosh Kumar’ were the same person.
Read also | Supreme Court draws attention to delays in insolvency, takes suo motu cognizance of loopholes in NCLT
The Bench noted that the genealogical records and electoral rolls indicated that the differences in the father’s first and last name were part of a deliberately altered identity pattern, rather than evidence of two separate individuals. In view of these clear findings, it invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to uphold the dismissal of Ranjan Kumar from the Bihar Police Service.
“The material available goes far beyond mere suspicion and adequately establishes a conscious course of fraud adopted by respondent no.1 to obtain employment benefits from two sovereign employers in a disciplined force,” it said.
The court further said, “The charges, now strengthened by forensic findings, prima facie reveal the commission of cognizable offenses such as cheating, impersonation, forgery, use of forged documents and giving false information to public authorities under the Indian Penal Code or the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as the case may be.”
In view of these findings, the apex court directed the police authorities of Bihar and Jharkhand to look into the criminal dimensions of the case and proceed according to law. The court further noted that public employment, particularly in the police force, cannot be used as a means of committing fraud.
The Supreme Court noted that if those responsible for upholding the law gain entry into service through fraud and forged credentials, it would significantly weaken the rule of law. In such a situation, he stated that upon granting a disciplinary action, it is necessary and appropriate to initiate criminal prosecution according to the law.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
