Gauhati High Court
Pranab Kr. Nath vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 21 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010266532019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8078/2019
PRANAB KR. NATH
S/O LT. KAMALESHWAR NATH, R/O- VILL. DOHALI, P.O. BATORHAT, P.S.
PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM. PIN- 781122.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. PIN 110001.
2:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ( NCR SECTOR)-CUM- REVISIONAL
AUTHORITY
CISF
BLOCK 11
6TH FLOOR
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI. PIN- 110003.
3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL-CUM- APPELLANT AUTHORITY
CISF
(GBS)
16/11
JAMNAGAR HOUSE
NEW DELHI
PIN 110001.
4:THE SENIOR COMMANDANT
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
CISF UNIT
GBS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI
Page No.# 2/5
PIN- 110001.
5:THE COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT
ISP BURNPUR
P.O.- BURNPUR
DISTRICT- BARDHAMAN
WEST BENGAL
PIN- 713325.
6:PAULIANKAP
DEPUTY COMMANDANT-CUM- ENQUIRY OFFICER
CISF UNIT
GBS
NEW DELHI
PIN- 110001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 21-07-2022
Heard Mr. T Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
the petitioner was a Constable/General Diary in the Central Industrial
Security Force Unit (CISF). A departmental enquiry was initiated against the
petitioner for marrying another woman during the subsistence of his earlier
marriage. The petitioner was found guilty of the charge having conducted a
2nd marriage in violation of Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001 and as such,
he was terminated from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also
rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition which was
also dismissed on 26.07.2018. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
order dated 01.07.2017 on the sole ground that the penalty imposed upon
Page No.# 3/5
the petitioner was not proportionate to the offence. He submits that the
punishment imposed was too harsh and that a lesser punishment/penalty
should be imposed upon the petitioner. He also submits that the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Trilok Singh Rawat vs. Union of
India, reported in 2000 (3) GLT 558 had the occasion to deal with a
similar matter, wherein the writ petitioner therein who was an Assistant Sub-
Inspector in the CRPF had conducted a 2nd marriage during the subsistence
of the 1st marriage. The petitioner therein was dismissed from service.
However, the Division Bench of this Court in Trilok Singh Rawat (supra)
agreed with the decision of the learned Single Judge and set aside the
punishment of dismissal and directed the disciplinary authority to impose a
lenient punishment, other than the punishment of dismissal, which implies
that the Division Bench found that the punishment of dismissal was too
harsh.
Ms. B Sarma, learned CGC submits that the petitioner having violated Rule
21 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) of the CISF
Rules, 2001, which does not allow a Government servant to have a 2 nd marriage
during the subsistence of 1st marriage, the dismissal of the petitioner from
service was commensurate with the offence.
I have heard the counsels for the parties.
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.
Page No.# 4/5
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 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964,
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.
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.
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. There is nothing to show in the case of Trilok Singh
Rawat (supra) that the penalty of dismissal imposed therein had shocked the
conscience of the Court. Be that as it may, 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
Page No.# 5/5
the petitioner. However, the imposition of penalty should be done by the
disciplinary authority.
Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from service vide the impugned order
dated 01.07.2017 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.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
