Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent, Ranjan Kumar, and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. The respondent, a constable in the Jharkhand Police appointed on 18.05.2005, was granted compensatory leave from 20.12.2007 to 23.12.2007 but failed to rejoin duty and remained unauthorisedly absent. During this absence, he allegedly secured appointment as a constable in the Bihar Police on 26.12.2007 under the name Santosh Kumar, son of Kamta Sharma, using forged certificates and fabricated credentials. He abandoned duty from Bihar Police on 06.01.2008. An enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, through the Officer-in-Charge, Onkari Police Station, revealed that the respondent and Santosh Kumar were the same person. Based on this, a memorandum of charge was issued on 02.09.2008, to which the respondent submitted a written statement of defence. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 01.07.2010 holding the charges proved, and after considering the respondent's reply, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 20.08.2010. The appellate and revisional authorities affirmed the dismissal. The respondent then filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 30.10.2015. However, the Division Bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeal on 25.08.2022, quashing the dismissal orders. The State of Jharkhand and others appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in reappreciating evidence in a departmental enquiry where the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the charges were proved based on documentary evidence, including application forms, photographs, certificates, and official correspondence, which were supplied to the respondent. The principles of natural justice were complied with. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the orders of the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities, thereby upholding the dismissal of the respondent from service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Standard of Proof - Preponderance of Probabilities - In a domestic enquiry, strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply; any material logically probative for a prudent mind is admissible. The standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 4.5, 6) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope - Reappreciation of Evidence - The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate evidence in a departmental matter as if sitting in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority. Interference is warranted only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 4.3, 6) C) Service Law - Misconduct - Dual Appointment - Forgery - A police constable who secures appointment in two different police forces simultaneously by using forged certificates and dual identities, and remains unauthorisedly absent from one force, commits grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service. (Paras 3.1-3.2, 4.4, 5.2-5.4) D) Service Law - Natural Justice - Supply of Documents - Where the memorandum of charge and all relevant documents, including enquiry reports and official correspondence, are supplied to the delinquent and he is given full opportunity to defend, the principles of natural justice are complied with. (Paras 4.2, 5.5, 5.7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the dismissal order of a police constable by reappreciating evidence in a departmental enquiry where charges of dual appointment, forgery, and unauthorised absence were proved on preponderance of probabilities.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.08.2022, and restored the orders of the disciplinary authority dated 20.08.2010, the appellate authority dated 21.05.2011, and the revisional authority dated 06.02.2012, thereby upholding the dismissal of Respondent No. 1 from service.
Law Points
- Preponderance of probabilities standard in departmental proceedings
- Judicial review limited to procedural fairness and not reappreciation of evidence
- Non-application of strict Evidence Act rules in domestic enquiries
- Concurrent findings of fact not lightly interfered with
