The Jharkhand High Court set aside the order directing the petitioners to reconsider the dismissal of service of a CRPF officer for marrying another woman while his first marriage was still subsisting and held that a higher standard of conduct is always expected in case of a discipline organisation like the paramilitary or the armed police force and their standard of behaviour and activities is far more than an employee in a civic organisation.
Brief Facts:
The respondent, appointed as a constable in CRPF Group Center married another woman without obtaining a divorce from his first wife after which an enquiring officer was appointed to frame charges against the petitioner who held the respondent guilty of the charges and an order dismissing the respondent from service was passed which was challenged by the respondent and trial court held that the authorities before passing the impugned orders of dismissal from service ought to have considered that after passing of the impugned orders, the livelihood of the petitioner is at stake and the quantum of punishment should be reconsidered.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioner violated the existing rules and committed an offence as second marriage is not permissible in the police force except in case of death or divorce and the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had thus rightly taken action n against the petitioner for contracting plural marriage under existing rules and the punishment awarded to the petitioner was just and valid. It was further argued that the petitioner entered into a second marriage by overlooking existing instructions applicable to government servants and committed misconduct in his capacity as a government servant of para military force.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the infliction of punishment upon him was illegal, arbitrary and against the well-settled principle of law and the authority while inflicting punishment failed to take into account that respondent 5 admitted during her evidence that she consented to the marriage with the petitioner despite knowing that he was already married.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the judgment in Khursheed Ahmad Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others which held that the finding of a violation of the Conduct Rules cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference by the Court and the appellant violated the Rule 29 of the Conduct Rules by marrying another woman during the subsistence of his marriage with the first wife.
It was further stated that the punishment of removal from service in case of establishment of misconduct for the act of bigamy, removal of service cannot be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct established whenever the cases are related to the employees of disciplined forces as their standard of behaviour and activities is far more than an employee in a civic organisation and a higher standard of conduct is always expected in case of a discipline organisation like the paramilitary or the armed police force.
The court further stated that violating the principle of law, which is well settled by various judgments, is a reflection of judicial discipline in constitutional Courts and they are not exempted from following the judicial discipline.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Union of India and ors. vs. Nazir Ahmad Malik and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: L.P.A. No. 210 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Ms. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Rajeev Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rahul Saboo and Mr. Candra Suman
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
