2025:JHHC:12557-DB 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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