The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that it is unbecoming of police personnel who be in live-in-relation with another lady other than his wife and amounts to a violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was posted as a constable in the police station and a complaint was lodged by one XXX that the Petitioner being married and having two children, lived with her in live-in- relation and in continuance of physical relationship she became pregnant. Thereafter, the petitioner started torturing her by various means, for which a Panchayati was also held. Regarding this, the police report was also filed. Thereafter, the Petitioner was put on suspension and regular departmental proceedings were initiated. The enquiry proceedings were started and having found the charge of relationship proved, the petitioner was held guilty, which culminated in his dismissal from service. The appeal and revision preferred by the Petitioner were also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of the law as the Petitioner has been punished for the charge which is not reflected in the charge memo. It was furthermore submitted that the Petitioner was living in a live-in relationship doesn’t mean that she was married to the Petitioner, as the Petitioner does not recognize any marriage. Also, as per the proviso to Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which is related to the solemnization of second marriage, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., G.M. Tank Vs. The State of Gujarat, and M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the Petitioner was living in a live-in relationship while she was already married. It was furthermore submitted that the petitioner being a member of the Police Force was not expected to violate the Rules, in particular Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code, read with Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Also, merely acquittal in the criminal case cannot be a ground for quashment of the order of dismissal.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is inappropriate for a police officer to live in live- in relation with a woman other than their spouse and violates the regulations that govern the petitioner's service conditions.
It was furthermore observed that merely because the Petitioner was acquitted from a criminal case, it can’t be the ground for the quashment of the order of dismissal. The parameters of the criminal case are different from the regular departmental proceeding.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP and others, and Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran.
The court noted that the order passed by the disciplinary authorities can’t be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when no folly in the departmental proceeding is pointed out.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that an impugned order requires no interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: XXX V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Pathak
Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 2250 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
