High Court of Meghalaya
Reserved On: 06.08.2024 vs The Union Of India on 16 August, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2024:MLHC:744-DB
Serial No. 03 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Supplementary List AT SHILLONG
WA No. 41 of 2024
Reserved on: 06.08.2024
Pronounce on: 16.08.2024
Ganga Sagar Ram
.....Appellant
- Versus -
1. The Union of India,
represented by Secretary of Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. Mahaniveshalaya, Assam Rifles Director General of Assam
Rifles, (A branch) (Discp)/Law/VIG/Record branch/CPBO
(AR)/ARGIS Dte Shillong 10.
3. Inspector General Assam Rifles (North) C/o 99, APO.
4. Deputy Inspector General, Assam Rifles Headquarter,
7 Sector, Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO
5. 15 Assam Rifles, Pin - 32015, C/O 99 APO
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Debnath, CGC
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
Page 1 of 6
2024:MLHC:744-DB
JUDGMENT
(Made by Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Singe Judge in WP(C) No. 452
of 2022.
2. The sum and substance of the case on hand is that the
appellant was serving as a Rifleman G/D in Assam Rifles and was
discharged from service on the ground of polygamy (plural marriage)
and the order of discharge dated 23.05.2018 was upheld by the learned
Single Judge.
3. According to the appellant, he had entered into a second
marriage during the subsistence of first marriage and that on
31.10.2016, the second marriage was dissolved by the competent Court
of Law. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
was issued with a show cause notice on 16.09.2017, relating to the
Court of inquiry proceedings, which was held against plural marriage
contracted by the appellant. The appellant further contended that he did
not marry anyone when the first marriage was in subsistence and that
the punishment imposed on him by the respondent authorities is
disproportionate.
2024:MLHC:744-DB
4. The respondents-Assam Rifles contended that the appellant
has contracted into a second marriage during the lifetime of the first
wife without taking legal divorce. It is further contended that after
issuance of show cause notice and affording reasonable opportunity to
him, a detailed inquiry was conducted. On completion of enquiry, it
came to light that the appellant was guilty of marrying second time, that
too, during the subsistence of the first marriage, which is in violation of
Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010. For the sake of
convenience, Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 is extracted
below:
"10. (2) Any person subject to the Act, who contracts or enters
into a second marriage during the life time of his first spouse,
shall render himself ineligible for retention in service and may
be dismissed, removed or retired from service on ground of
unsuitability:
Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that
there are sufficient grounds for so ordering, exempt any person
from the operation of this rule."
5. The learned Single Judge has called for the records to
ascertain the procedure followed by the Assam Rifles and after perusing
the same, the learned Single Judge came into the conclusion that the
appellant did not deny the fact that he had contracted the second
marriage. The learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant
2024:MLHC:744-DB
contracted a second marriage on 27.05.2014 during the subsistence of
his first marriage and hence, there was no irregularity and infirmity in
the proceedings.
6. During the course of argument, it has been stated that there
was no second marriage, but there was only a live-in relationship. The
submission made by the appellant cannot be accepted, for the simple
reason that it was proved on record that the appellant had been living
with the so-called second wife for a long period and cohabited with her
under the same roof, which is sufficient to establish that there was a
marriage. Thus, the second marriage of the appellant has been duly
established in this case and if the contention of the appellant that he had
maintained only live-in relationship with the second wife, is accepted, it
will give a wrong signal to others that without solemnizing marriage,
any male person can live with another lady and this will defeat the
purpose of marriage and in that event, the sacrament of marriage itself
would be lost.
7. It has been further contended that the appellant has been
imposed with the capital punishment. A reading of the Rule which is
extracted supra, is very clear that a person who contracts into a second
marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse need not be retained in
2024:MLHC:744-DB
service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service. In this
case, the appellant was issued with an order dated 06.04.2018, pursuant
to which, he has been discharged from service. According to both the
parties, the appellant is entitled to all pensionary benefits as admissible
to him vide order dated 23.05.2018 issued by the Deputy Inspector
General in terms of Rule 11(2) of Assam Rifles Act, 2006 read with sub-
rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, discharging the
appellant from service w.e.f. 23.05.2018, where it has been mentioned
that the appellant has completed 14 years 11 months and 19 days of
service after deducting non-qualifying service. Thus, the appellant has
completed 15 years of service and an order has been passed granting
pensionary benefits. For relevance, paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the order
dated 23.05.2018 are extracted below:
"5. Total qualifying service of the individual is 14 years 11
months and 19 days after deducting non qualifying service.
6. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred on
me under the provision of Section 11(2) of Assam Rifles Act
2006 read with Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Assam Rifles, 2010, I
hereby discharge the Number G/154412K Rifleman (General
Duty) Ganga Sagar Ram of 15 Assam Rifles from the Assam
Rifles service with effect from 23 May 2018 (forenoon).
Number G/154412K Rifleman (General Duty) Ganga Sagar
Ram of 15 Assam Rifles is entitled to get all Pensionary benefits
as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement
under CCS (Pension Rule)."
2024:MLHC:744-DB
8. The Apex Court, in a recent judgment in the case of Mukesh
Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of lndia (UOI) and Others, reported in AIR
2023 SC 482 observed that it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the
personnel in a disciplined force to maintain discipline of the highest
order. The Appellant herein, having acted in contravention to the
established Rules (supra), cannot seek for reinstatement, questioning his
discharge.
9. In view of the same, we find no reason to interfere with the
order of discharge passed by the Assam Rifles as confirmed by the
learned Single Judge.
10. WA No. 41 of 2024 is dismissed. No costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
