### Judicial Review Limits: High Courts Cannot Reappreciate Evidence in Departmental Inquiries Based on Fraud

Respondent No. 1, Ranjan Kumar, was appointed as a Constable in the Jharkhand Police in 2005.

In December 2007, while on compensatory leave, he allegedly absented himself without authorization.

It was alleged that during this period, he secured a second appointment as a Constable in the Bihar Police under the name "Santosh Kumar" using forged credentials.

A departmental enquiry concluded that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were the same person, leading to his dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority on 20.08.2010.

This order was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional authorities.

A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his writ petition, but a Division Bench later set aside the dismissal, citing a lack of evidence regarding dual employment.

The State of Jharkhand appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered a fresh forensic enquiry by the Bihar Police during the proceedings.

The Court applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to departmental enquiries, rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of criminal trials.

It relied heavily on the principles of judicial review established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which restricts courts from acting as appellate authorities over findings of fact made by disciplinary bodies.

It further integrated the parameters of Article 226/227 set out in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with the adequacy or reliability of evidence if some legal evidence exists.

Additionally, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice.

The Court observed that the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities arrived at concurrent findings based on relevant documentary evidence, including photographs and official reports from both Patna and Jehanabad.

The Court noted that the Division Bench erred by reappreciating evidence as if it were a court of first appeal, which is prohibited under the settled law of judicial review.

To resolve the factual dispute of identity, the Court analyzed a forensic report dated 11.04.2026, which used fingerprint and biometric comparison to confirm that Ranjan Kumar and Santosh Kumar were indeed the same individual.

The Court reasoned that since Respondent No. 1 was part of a disciplined force, his acts of fraud and dual employment at the entry level were grave misconducts that justified the highest penalty.

The Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restored the dismissal order of the Disciplinary Authority.

Exercising its power under Article 142, the Court quashed the appointment of "Santosh Kumar" in the Bihar Police.

It further directed the Directors General of Police of both Bihar and Jharkhand to initiate criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 1 for cheating, forgery, and impersonation.