Jharkhand High Court
Upendra Kumar vs The Union Of India on 28 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:12557-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 338 of 2024
Upendra Kumar, S/o Sri Droga Singh, R/o Village-Darshan Chapra,
PO-Khopira, PS-Udwant Nagar, District-Bhojpur, Bihar
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Inspector General of Police, RAF Sector, Central Reserve
Police Force, East Block-2, Level-VI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force,
Range-3, Central Reserve Police Force, Balawala, Dehradun,
Uttarakhand
4. The Commandant, 106-Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central
Reserve Police Force, Sundar Nagar, Jamshedpur, District- East
Singhbhum
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
-----
07/28.04.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
respondents.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred
by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 10.11.2023
passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1883 of 2020.
3. The appellant was appointed to the post of 'Constable'
on 24.07.2004 in Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. From time to
time, he was transferred to different places and ultimately, posted
with C.R.P.F.- 106 Battalion (RAF), Sundar Nagar, Jamshedpur on
12.07.2016.
4. A complaint against the appellant from one Jai Prakash
Singh was made to the Commandant 106 Battalion (RAF), Sundar
Nagar, Jamshedpur alleging that the actual name of the appellant is
Arun Kumar Singh and he has served the C.R.P.F. by using the
2025:JHHC:12557-DB
certificate of his elder brother - Upendra Kumar and adopting his
name.
5. On the basis of the complaint, the respondents issued
a show cause notice to the appellant on 31.12.2016 to which the
appellant replied.
6. Thereafter, an enquiry was initiated against the
appellant in terms of Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955.
7. A detailed explanation was given by the appellant on
25.09.2018 denying the charges levelled.
8. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted in
which several witnesses were also examined and the appellant also
participated, and the enquiry officer submitted final report holding
the charges levelled against the appellant to be proved. Thereafter,
the disciplinary authority passed an order on 19.11.2018 removing
the appellant from service.
9. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, Range-3, Central
Reserve Police Force, Dehradun (the respondent no. 3) who
dismissed the appeal on 20.02.2019.
10. The appellant also preferred a Revision before the
Inspector General of Police, RAF Sector, Central Reserve Police
Force, New Delhi (the respondent no. 2) which was dismissed on
09.01.2020.
11. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 1883 of 2020
in this Court.
12. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant
2025:JHHC:12557-DB
contended that he is innocent; a report of the Superintendent of
Police, Bhojpur, Ara has not been considered by the respondents
and the said report indicated that the name of the appellant's father
was "Ram Daroga Singh" whereas in the service book, it is
mentioned as "Daroga Singh".
13. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondents
opposed the plea of the appellant and contended that the material
was considered in its departmental enquiry. It is pointed out that
the appellant was given a fair and unbiased hearing with sufficient
opportunity to cross-examine the P.Ws. and there is no violation of
the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer found the
charges levelled against the appellant to be fully proved and
thereupon the disciplinary authority issued the order of removal.
The said order has been affirmed before the Appellate Authority as
well as the Revisional Authority.
14. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment
held that the material on record indicates that on the basis of
educational certificate of his elder brother Upendra Kumar Singh,
the appellant joined service, that the appellant's name in fact is
'Arun Kumar Singh' and his elder brother's is 'Upendra Kumar Singh'
and the appellant assumed the identity of his elder brother at the
time of joining of service and thus played fraud on the respondents
to secure appointment.
15. In the enquiry report, the report of the Superintendent
of Police, Bhojpur, Ara dated 01.11.2017 was relied upon which
indicated that the father of the appellant was Daroga Singh and he
2025:JHHC:12557-DB
had two sons. The elder son Upendra Kumar Singh was living with
the family, while the appellant Arun Kumar Singh (who was
masquerading as 'Upendra Kumar Singh') was serving in the C.R.P.F
on the basis of the educational certificate of his elder brother
Upendra Kumar Singh. Even the D.M., Bhojpur, Ara, Bihar sent a
verification report dated 13.07.2017 corroborating this fact.
16. Merely because a year later, the Police Inspector of
Sadar, Circle-Ara sent a different report, it makes no difference and
the reports of the S.P., Bhojpur and the D.M., Bhojpur cannot be
ignored.
17. In any event, appreciation of evidence cannot be done
in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal arising out of judgment of the writ petition. Where
there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and where
the findings of the enquiry are based on evidence adduced therein
and do not appear to be perverse, there is no scope for
interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge
upholding the punishment imposed on the appellant.
18. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Letters
Patent Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish/Ritesh
