Supreme Court news: Stressing that police service cannot become an instrument of fraud, the Supreme Court recently restored an order dismissing a police constable accused of obtaining jobs in both the Bihar and Jharkhand police forces using fabricated credentials and remaining unauthorisedly absent from service.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan quashed the division bench of the high court, which had granted relief to the constable by setting aside his dismissal.
“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,” the May 8 Supreme Court order said.
Justice R Mahadevan upheld the dismissal of the police constable in the May 8 order.
The bench added, “It is well settled that a member of the police force is 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.”
The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary action taken against the respondent, culminating in his removal from service, suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in the exercise of judicial review.
Cop with ‘two names’
- On May 18, 2005, the respondent was appointed as a constable in the Jharkhand Police.
- While serving at the Dhurki Police Station as a reserve guard, he was given two days’ leave, but he failed to rejoin after those two days and remained unauthorisedly absent thereafter.
- During the said period of absence, the respondent had allegedly secured an appointment as a constable in the Patna, Bihar, under some other name by relying upon forged certificates and fabricated credentials.
- On January 6, 2008, the respondent, without any information, abandoned duty with the Patna district police.
- A notice was issued to him by the superintendent of police, and an inquiry was conducted through the office-in-charge, which revealed that the reserve guard at the Dhurki Police Station and the constable in Bihar were the same person.
- The respondent was given a chance to submit his defence, and upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service on August 20, 2010.
- The respondent filed a petition before the Jharkhand High Court, which was dismissed by the order dated October 30, 2015.
- After exhausting the departmental remedies, the aggrieved respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed by the division bench through an order dated August 25, 2022.
Violation of service discipline
The disciplinary authority’s imposition of charges of fraud, impersonation, forgery, cheating, unauthorised absences from duty and violation of service discipline stood proved, the Supreme Court said.
The apex court recorded that the respondent, while serving as a constable in Jharkhand’s Garhwa district police, secretly secured another appointment in the Bihar Police under a different identity, by suppressing his existing employment and by using forged or manipulated documents.
The appellate authority, after reviewing the material available on record, concurred with the findings of guilt, holding that the punishment of dismissal was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
No procedural lapse in charges: Supreme Court
Noting that the allegations were of a grave nature, affecting the integrity of the police force, and that the respondent had failed to prove his innocence, the Supreme Court affirmed the departmental proceedings against the respondent.
The charge against the respondent was not a mere procedural lapse or unauthorised absence in a simple manner, but indicate a deliberate fraud upon the state police forces of Jharkhand and Bihar, by securing or attempting to secure public employment under two different names, supported by fabricated or manipulated documents, the Supreme Court pointed out.
Police must maintain highest integrity: Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court stated that it was well settled that a member of the police force is expected to maintain the highest degree of integrity, honesty and discipline.
- The material on record establishes a conscious course of deceit adopted by the respondent for obtaining employment benefits from two sovereign employers in a disciplined force.
- Underlining the settled law that the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority are not to be interfered with by the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that where the material on record reasonably supports the departmental case, the high court would not reappreciate the evidence.
- Considering the 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, the court said.
- The Supreme Court stated that the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was a proportionate and justified administrative measure arising out of a fair and lawful enquiry.
‘Bench’s error in granting relief to constable’
- The counsel for the state of Jharkhand submitted that the division bench of the Jharkhand High Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment passed by the single judge in the petition and consequently quashed the state’s orders dismissing the respondent from service.
- It was contended that the single judge had specifically held that the order of penalty was neither passed by ignoring relevant material on record nor based on no evidence.
- It was argued that despite such findings, the division bench wrongly concluded that there was no evidence to establish that the respondent had secured an appointment with the Bihar Police while continuing in service under the Jharkhand Police.
- The counsel submitted that the charges framed against the respondent stood duly proved based on evidence, including photocopies of application forms, photographs, certificates submitted before the Bihar Police authorities, and before the Garhwa police in Jharkhand, at the time of joining, as well as reports obtained from the superintendent of police, Patna and Jehanabad.
- It was argued that in a domestic inquiry, strict and technical rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply, and any material which was logically probative for a prudent mind was admissible.
- It was urged that the misconduct proved was not of a minor nature, but involved deliberate acts of forgery and fraud for illegally drawing salary from the public exchequer.
- The counsel said that the respondent had submitted a written statement of defence, but failed to furnish any truthful, cogent, or transparent explanation regarding the incriminating findings of the Onkari Police Station, Jehanabad, or the dual identities used by him.
Supreme Court restores single judge order
The director generals of police, Bihar and Jharkhand, shall ensure that the matter is examined by the competent jurisdictional police authority and appropriate steps are taken in accordance with law, the Supreme Court said.
The judgment of the division bench is accordingly set aside, and the single judge’s judgment, along with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, stands restored. 9
Fundamental defect in disciplinary proceedings
- The constable’s counsel submitted that the state of Jharkhand failed to make out any case warranting interference by this court under Article 136 (grants the Supreme Court discretionary, extraordinary power to hear special leave petitions against judgments from any Indian court or tribunal, except military tribunals) of the Constitution.
- It was submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings suffer from a fundamental defect, and not a single witness from Bihar was examined to substantiate the allegations.
- Additionally, only one formal witness was examined, and none of the persons connected with the alleged appointments, records, or complaints was produced before the enquiry officer.
- It was argued that although strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act may not apply to departmental proceedings, the charges must be established based on reliable material, and mere suspicion, conjecture, or departmental assumptions cannot substitute proof.
- The allegation against the respondent that he served in Patna as a constable using some other name was wholly baseless and unsupported by evidence.
- The counsel submitted that the respondent was dismissed from service on August 20, 2010, and more than 13 years had elapsed, and the charge remains unproven. No liberty ought to be reserved for initiating any fresh departmental enquiry at this stage.
Share
