Supreme Court Orders Criminal Action Against Constable For Dual Police Jobs Fraud

The Supreme Court has directed initiation of criminal proceedings against a police constable accused of securing appointments in both Bihar and Jharkhand Police using different identities, calling the act a serious fraud that undermines the rule of law.

The bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan, observed that public employment, particularly in the police force, cannot be turned into “an instrument of fraud”.

The Court reinstated the dismissal of the constable, holding that his conduct involved impersonation and fabrication of credentials, and warranted criminal action in addition to departmental proceedings.

According to the case details, the constable, identified as Ranjan Kumar, was appointed in the Jharkhand Police in 2005. However, after going on leave in 2007, he allegedly failed to rejoin duty and is said to have secured another appointment in the Bihar Police under a different name, “Santosh Kumar”, using altered personal details.

The authorities alleged that he simultaneously held or attempted to hold positions in two state police forces by concealing his original identity and submitting forged documents.

A departmental inquiry led to his dismissal in 2010, which was initially upheld by a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. However, a Division Bench later overturned the dismissal, citing lack of properly examined evidence.

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court’s order, clarified that disciplinary proceedings do not require the strict standards of criminal trials. It held that evidence such as official records, applications, and inquiry reports are sufficient in departmental proceedings, which operate on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.

The Court further emphasized that High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, should not re-evaluate evidence like an appellate court unless findings are perverse or unsupported by material on record.

Calling the case a serious breach of public trust, the Court ruled that criminal proceedings must be initiated to address the alleged impersonation and fraud in public employment.