Gauhati High Court
Pabitra Kumar Nath vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 3 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010107632022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3919/2022
PABITRA KUMAR NATH
S/O- LATE- CHANDRA DHAR NATH,
VILL- NATHPARA, P.O- KULSHI,
DIST- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM,
PIN-781125
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY., GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS , NEW
DELHI.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
NEW DELHI.
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
M AND N SECTOR
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
IMPHAL
MANIPUR.
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GROUP CENTER
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
RANGE IMPHAL
5:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NORTH EASTERN SECTOR
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
Page No.# 2/5
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GROUP CENTER
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
GUWAHATI-23
7:THE COMMANDANT
87 BATTALION
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
JIRIBAM MANIPU
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 03.08.2022
Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. J. Das,
learned CGC appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 25.10.2017, Order
dated 28.12.2017 rejecting the petitioner's appeal and the Order dated 01.10.2019 rejecting
the petitioner's Revision Petition.
3) The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was working as a Constable GD
in the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF) and during the subsistence of his first marriage,
the petitioner contracted a second marriage.
Page No.# 3/5
4) Subsequent to the above, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the
petitioner, for having violated Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which prohibits a
Government servant from contracting a second marriage, while having a living spouse.
5) As the fact of the petitioner having contracted a second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage was proved and not denied by the petitioner, the petitioner
had been dismissed from service vide the impugned Order dated 25.10.2017.
6) The Appeal & Revision filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the
respondent Authorities.
7) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has prayed for setting aside the
impugned Order and to direct the respondent Authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service
with all service benefits.
8) The petitioner's counsel submits that there were no procedural irregularities in the
departmental proceedings. However, as the penalty imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate to the offence, the petitioner may be inflicted with any other penalty, except
the penalty of dismissal. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Trilok Singh Rawat vs. Union of India,
reported in 2000 (3) GLT 558.
9) Mr. D. J. Das, learned CGC submits that in view of the judgment in Trilok Singh
Rawat (supra), the matter can be remanded back to the disciplinary authority to impose a
penalty other than dismissal from service.
10) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Page No.# 4/5
11) In the case of Khursheed Ahmad Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 439, the issue to be decided by the Apex Court was with regard
to whether Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Conduct Rules"), was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
The appellant therein, who was professing the Mohammedan faith, was removed from service
due to having contracted another marriage during the existence of the 1st marriage, without
the permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1) of the Conduct Rules. The Apex
Court after taking into consideration Rule 21 of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules,
1956, various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts, held that Rule 29(1) of the
Conduct Rules was not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The removal of
the appellant therein was also not interfered with by the Apex Court.
12) In the present case, the petitioner has been dismissed from service due to
contracting a 2nd marriage during the subsistence of the 1st marriage. In the case of
Khursheed Ahmad Khan (supra), the Apex Court had upheld the removal of the appellant
therein from service.
13) In the case of BSM (PG) College vs. Samrat Sharma , reported in (2019) 16
SCC 56, the Apex Court has held that interference with the penalty imposed on a delinquent
officer is permissible only when it shocks the conscience of the Court. As the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Trilok Singh Rawat (supra), had set aside the order of dismissal
and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority, with a direction to impose some
other lighter penalty. In view of the fact that the Apex Court in Khursheed Ahmad Khan
(supra) had upheld the order of removal in a similar set of facts as the present case, this
Court is of the view that the penalty of removal can be imposed upon the petitioner. However,
the imposition of penalty should be done by the disciplinary authority.
Page No.# 5/5
14) Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from service, vide the impugned order dated
25.10.2017, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the rejection of the appeal and the revision
petition in so far as it upholds the penalty of dismissal is also set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the disciplinary authority, to impose any other penalty on the petitioner,
other than the penalty of dismissal from service.
15) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
