[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Balkrishna Mahadeo Tayade, Maharastra ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Home ... on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
+ WRIT PETITION No.9473 of 2005
Between:
Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade .. Petitioner
AND
Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi and two others.
.. Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.04.2026
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
___________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.9473 of 2005
% 07-04-2026
# Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade
.. Petitioner
AND
$ Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi and two others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.V. Prasad
^Counsel for Respondents : Mrs. Anjali Agarwal,
Learned SC for Central Govt.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.9473 of 2005
Between:
Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade .. Petitioner
AND
Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi and two others.
.. Respondents
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order of
the 3rd respondent in No.P.VIII-17/2000-5-EC-2 dated
22.02.2001, as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent in
No.RX-III-7/2001-ESTT-3 dated 04.05.2001, and consequently
direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service
with all back wages.
2. Heard Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Anjali Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for Central
Government, appearing for the respondents. Perused the
record.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force on
04.12.1990 as a Cook in 100Bn, Nagpur Centre, Nagpur. In
his entire service, there were no adverse remarks against him
except the impugned orders. The petitioner was removed from
service after the 3rd respondent conducted a departmental
enquiry, issuing a memorandum of charges along with
statements of articles, alleging that he committed an act of
misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Sec
11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. In that, it is alleged that he
contracted one Ms. Sangita D/o Janrao Gawai, and married
her, while he was already married and was living with his
legally wedded wife, Smt. Sangeeta alias Pradhya D/o Ajabrao
Bondaji Wankhade, without getting a divorce from her.
(b) The petitioner's marriage had taken place with
Sangeeta alias Pradhya on 30.03.1997. Later, she left the
house, and their divorce was finalized on 10.04.2000.
Thereafter, his maternal uncle, Janrao Gawai, sent his
daughter, Sangeeta, to his house to look after and care for the
petitioner's aged parents, as the petitioner was in Central
Government service and posted to different places across the
country. The said Sangeeta is actually the petitioner's
maternal uncle's daughter. The said Sangita alleged that the
marriage had taken place between them on 09.09.1998 and on
the said false plea, she filed a case u/s 125 of Cr.P.C against
the petitioner. The J.M.F.C., Anjangaon Surji, in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.159/99 on 16.02.2002 passed
the order granting maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the
complainant Sangeeta. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred a Revision before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Achalpur, which was set aside.
(c) The Departmental enquiry conducted by the
Commandant as the Enquiry Officer is erroneous and the
finding therein is perverse and far from the actual truth. The
Enquiry Officer gave a finding without conducting a detailed
enquiry or considering the petitioner's version. The 3rd
respondent did not provide a proper opportunity to the
petitioner, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
in Cr.Rev.No.10/2002 dated 24.08.2004. It was observed that
the marriage was recorded in the Gram Panchayat records by
Sangeeta based only on the statement of the complainant's
brother, without the presence of either the complainant or the
petitioner. This shows that the marriage was recorded without
any substantial proof with a mala fide intention to create false
documents to trap the petitioner and to grab his property. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge gave a clear finding that the
Gram Panchayat record cannot be taken as valid proof.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondents No.2 and 3 ought to have seen that there was no
concrete evidence placed before them to show that the
petitioner had, during the subsistence of his earlier marriage,
married the complainant for the second time, except a letter
issued by the complainant herself, i.e., Ms. Sangita, alleging
the marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner had
plural marriage were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, has set aside the
trial court's order and acquitted the petitioner from all the
charges. As such, the respondent's action in removing the
petitioner from service is highly perverse. Accordingly, prayed
to allow the Writ Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Standing counsel for the
respondents filed a counter by contending that the
departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner as
per the procedure laid down, and there was no procedural
irregularity. Petitioner also submitted a representation on
25.02.2001 to DIGP, CRPF, Hyderabad (Appellate authority),
which was rejected by DIGP, CRPF, Hyderabad, vide Office
Order, dated 16.05.2001, being devoid of merit.
7. Learned counsel for the Standing counsel further submits
that the petitioner was enlisted in the Force on 04.12.1990 as a
cook and accordingly he was paid pay and allowances till he
served in the Force. A complaint was received from Smt.
Sangeeta D/o Shri Janrao Gawai, stating that the petitioner
was not providing any amount for her maintenance. On
enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner initially married Smt.
Sangeeta D/o Shri Ajab Rao Bondaji Wankhade on 30.03.1997
and again married another lad by the name Sangeeta D/o
Janrao Gawai on 09.09.1998 without getting a divorce from the
first wife through the Court of Law. He got divorced from his
legally wedded wife (first wife) on 10.04.2000. Accordingly, the
petitioner was chargesheeted under Section 11(1) of the CRPF
Act, 1949, for his misconduct in his capacity as a member of
the Force, namely contracting a plural marriage, which is
against Rule-15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
8. Learned counsel for the Standing counsel further submits
that Rule15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 strictly prohibits that no
member of the Force who has a living wife shall contact any
other marriage without first obtaining the permission of the
Government. The argument of the petitioner that there was no
evidence for his plural marriage, except a letter/complaint from
Smt. Sangeeta D/o Janrao Gawai is baseless. The charges
levelled against the petitioner were not merely on the basis of
the marriage certificate and other evidence like wedding card,
photographs, etc., produced by his first wife Sangeeta D/o Shri
Ajabrao Bondaje Wankhade, but also on the basis of a
verification report furnished by the concerned Superintendent
of Police, which clearly stated that the petitioner contracted
plural marriage.
9. Learned counsel for the Standing counsel further submits
that the evidence, such as the marriage certificate and wedding
card was produced by Sait. Sangeeta D/o Shri Ajabruo
Bondaje Wankhade is crystal clear that the petitioner married
her on 30.03.1997. The report, also mentioned that his first
wife was still alive. He neither obtained a divorce from his first
wife through the Court of Law nor obtained any permission in
this regard from the competent authority before entering into a
second marriage with Smt. Sangeeta D/o Shri Janrao Gawai.
Keeping in view of such misconduct, he was awarded the
punishment of removal from service.
10. Learned counsel for the Standing counsel further submits
that during the course of the Departmental Enquiry, the
petitioner was given ample opportunity and reasonable time at
all stages in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings. The
charges framed against the petitioner were proved, and he was
again given 15 day's time by the disciplinary authority to make
his representation, if any. In response, he submitted that he
married Smt. Sangeeta D/o Ajab Rao Bondaji Wankhade on
30.03.1997 and divorced her on 10.04.2000, but he did not
marry Smt. Sangeeta D/o Shri Janrao Gawai. His
representation in this regard was found to be false by the
verification report received from the Superintendent of Police,
District Amaravathi. Thus, the petitioner's plea that his
contentions were not considered by the Commandant has no
merit.
11. Learned counsel for the Standing counsel further submits
that the petitioner was removed from service as a result of
Departmental Enquiry, vide Office Order, dated 22.02.2001,
since all the evidence available on record clearly indicates the
misconduct of plural marriage contracted by the petitioner.
As such, it is not appropriate to allow him to continue serving
in the disciplined force, such as the CRPF. Accordingly, prayed
to dismiss the Writ Petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
12. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no
evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer to establish that the
petitioner had contracted a second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage. He also submitted that the
Enquiry Officer, while punishing the petitioner, relied upon the
complaint of the alleged 2nd wife enclosing a photocopy of the
wedding card, marriage registration certificate and
photographs. And also letters dated 26.05.2000, 28.09.2000
and 21.10.2000 of the Superintendent of Police, Achalpur, in
response to the letters of 24.05.2000 and 13.09.2000 of the
Department, intimating that the petitioner married a 2nd time
while his marriage was subsisting. To establish the petitioner's
case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
following judgments:
i) 2006(5) SCC 446 GM Tanks Vs. State of Gujarat
and another;
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon some
paragraphs of the judgment. In the same said judgment, it was
observed as follows:
"In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings
have already noticed are granted in the same set of facts
namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence,
recovery of articles there from. The Investigating Officer, Mr.
V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only
witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying
upon their statements came to the conclusion that the
charges were established against the appellant. The same
witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the
criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion
that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against
the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted
the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding
that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed
the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial
and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be
unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the
findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to
stand."
But, in the case at hand, it is entirely different. There are
no criminal proceedings, only a departmental enquiry. Based
on the departmental enquiry, on proved allegations, the
petitioner was removed from service. So, the question of a
similar set of facts or similar witnesses does not arise in the
present case. The above-relied case is applicable only where a
similar set of facts or a similar set of witnesses is present in
criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings. Hence,
the said case is not applicable in the present case.
ii) 2024(1) SCC 175 Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and
others. In this case also, the entire case depends upon the
departmental enquiry, and the criminal court is identical or
similar; if the evidence, witnesses, and circumstances are one
and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.
If the Court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in
the criminal proceedings after full consideration of the
prosecution's evidence and that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the charge, the court in judicial review can grant
redress in certain circumstances. The above case is also very
similar to the above relied case, and there are no simultaneous
departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings against
the petitioner in the present case. In the circumstances, the
above case law is also not applicable to the present case.
iii) 2025 INSC 554 Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State
of Bihar and others, at para No.43, read as follows:
"At this juncture, it is imperative to further underline that
the charge sheet against the appellant was issued based on
the written complaint of the informant. Law is again clear to
the effect that mere production of a document does not
constitute proof. If charge sheet is issued on the basis of a
written complaint, the author/complainant has to be
produced."
The above case is based on the document, and the
complainant's author must be produced. In the present case,
the petitioner was removed from service after contracting a
second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage,
without obtaining a divorce. The petitioner had a plural
marriage, and the complaint given by the first wife was not only
a complaint; she also produced the wedding card and
photographs of the petitioner. The petitioner contracted a
plural marriage, which is against the Force's disciplinary
norms, and was, as a result removed from service. The
Verification report of the Superintendent of Police, District
Amaravathi, clearly proved the 2nd marriage of the petitioner
beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the above case is also not
applicable to the present case.
iv) 2009(2) SCC 570 Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab
National Bank and others:
Para No.17 reads as follows:
"Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority
as also the appellate authority are not supported by
any reasons. As the orders passed by them have
severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons
should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer
has relied upon the confession made by the
appellant, there was no reason as to why the order
of discharge passed by the criminal court on the
basis of self-same evidence should not have been
taken into consideration. The materials brought on
record pointing out the guilt are required to be
proved. A decision must be arrived at on some
evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions
of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a
departmental proceedings but the principles of
natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry
officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also
surmises and conjectures, the same could not have
been sustained. The inferences drawn by the
Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by
any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however
high may be, can under no circumstances be held to
be a substitute for legal proof."
A plain reading of the above paragraph shows that the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority decided the
issue without providing any reasons, and the order passed by
the Court has serious civil consequences. The enquiry officer
relied upon the confession made by the appellant, and there is
no reason why the order of discharge passed by the criminal
court on the basis of the same evidence should not have been
taken into consideration. In the present case, the departmental
proceedings and the decision of the appellate authority are
based on reasonable evidence produced by the complainant,
such as photographs and the wedding card, and not merely on
ipse dixit, surmises, or conjectures. Therefore, the ground
relied upon is not applicable to the present case at hand.
v) 2024 INSC 873 Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another;
para No.14 reads as follows:
"In the case of Roopsing Negi, this court held that mere
production of document is not enough, contents of
documentary evidence have to be proved by examining
witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under.
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceedings is a quasi-
judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-
judicial function. The charges leveled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The
enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought on record by the
parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove
the said documents. The management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not prove the contents
thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry
officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence."
In the present case a major penalty was imposed not only
on the basis of documents such as the marriage certificate,
wedding card, and photographs produced by his first wife, Smt.
Sangeetha D/o Sri Ajab Rao Bonge Wankhade, but also on the
basis of the verification report furnished by the concerned
Superintendent of Police, which clearly stated that the
petitioner contracted plural marriage. Moreover, the evidence,
such as the marriage certificate, wedding card of the first wife,
is crystal clear that the petitioner married her on 30.03.1997.
In the report of the Superintendent of Police, it is also,
mentioned that the petitioner's first wife was still alive. The
petitioner neither obtained a divorce from his first wife through
the court of law nor obtained any permission in this regard
from the competent authority before entering into a second
marriage. So, the punishment imposed by the authorities is
not as stated in the above relied paras, but on facts.
vi) 2025 INSC 555 State of Uttar Pradesh through
Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow
Vs. Ram Prakash Singh.
In para No.18 reads as follows:
"Guided by the law declared in the aforesaid decisions, we
can safely conclude that the enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer in a manner not authorized by law could not
have formed the basis of the order of punishment dated 24th
March, 2015 imposed on the respondent. The first two
issues are, therefore, answered in the negative."
In the present case, the departmental enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 27 of
the CRPF Rules, 1955. The departmental enquiry against the
petitioner was conducted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure, and there was no procedural irregularity or violation
of the principles of natural justice. But, in the above-relied
upon paragraph, the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry
officer in a manner not authorized by law. In the present case
at hand, that question does not arise. The enquiry was
conducted in an authorized manner within the parameters of
CRPF Rules.
Para No.21 reads as follows:
".....The common thread running through all these decisions
is that, quashing of the proceedings does not follow as a
ritual if the claim for obtaining relief is that the report of
enquiry has not been furnished; on the contrary, grant of
relief in such a case must be preceded by satisfaction to be
recorded by the court that non-furnishing of the report did
'prejudice' the delinquent employee amounting to the due
process of law not being followed and thereby causing a
failure of justice; and, for such a finding to be recorded,
'prejudice' has to be pleaded and proved. Indeed, an
onerous burden placed on a delinquent employee!"
The issue of non-furnishing of the report does not arise in
the present case. During the course of the departmental
enquiry, the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity and
reasonable time at every stage of the proceedings. The charges
framed against the petitioner were fully established, and
thereafter, the disciplinary authority granted an additional 15
days' time to submit his representation, if any. In these
circumstances, no question of violation of due process of law
arises. The entire enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance
with the applicable CRPF Rules and in compliance with legal
requirements. Hence, the above case is not applicable to the
present set of facts.
13. It is to be noted that the maintenance case was filed by
the first wife before the JMFC, Anjagaon Surji, and in
Miscellaneous Criminal case No.159/1999 on 16.02.2002, the
said Court granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month in her
favour. Later, in defiance the said order, the petitioner
preferred Crl. Revision No.10 of 2002 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, and the same was
allowed by setting aside the order of the JMFC, Anjagaon Surji,
in Miscellaneous Criminal case No.159/1999.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out the
above-mentioned judgment in Crl. Revision No.10 of 2002
submits that, even though the Revisional Court set aside the
maintenance petition, the department did not consider the
same while imposing a major penalty. The facts remain are
that the order of setting aside the order of the JMFC, Anjagaon
Surji, in Miscellaneous Criminal case No.159/1999 by the
Revisional Court is not on merits. Revisional Court observes
that the respondent has not contested the revision petition.
Had the petitioner filed the miscellaneous criminal case order
in the present writ petition, this Court would have examined
the said order, but this was not done. Moreover, before
approaching this Court, the petitioner did not avail the
alternative remedy of Revision as provided under Rule-29 of the
CRPF Rules, 1955.
15. The authorities finally came to a conclusion that the
petitioner has committed grave misconduct which attracts the
provision u/s 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, r/w Rule 27 of the
CRPF Rules, 1955. It is not like all other departments, it is a
disciplinary Force; each and every small mistake is taken
seriously. At this stage, when the first wife, along with her
complaint, has produced the marriage certificate, wedding
invitation card, and photographs, these pieces of evidence
cannot be brushed aside or ignored. As per the contentions of
the petitioner's counsel, the marriage certificate issued by the
Gram Panchayat, is not admissible in law. It is to be noted
that, it is not a criminal case; it is only departmental
proceedings. As such, the certificate can be considered. The
departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature. Though
the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said
proceedings, principles of natural justice are to be followed. In
the present case, the departmental proceedings were properly
conducted, and ample opportunity was given to the petitioner
to prove his case. Natural justice was not violated while
imposing the major penalty against the petitioner.
16. In general, a false complaint may be filed in any case.
However, in the present matter, the complainant is the
petitioner's legally wedded first wife. It is highly improbable
that she would fabricate or produce false evidence, such as a
wedding card or photographs, against her own husband,
unless there had been some illegality or wrongdoing on his
part. As per the contention of the petitioner, he was on duty
on 09.09.1998, i.e. on the date of the 2nd marriage, as such,
the question of the 2nd marriage on that day does not arise.
But, a perusal of the letter dated 29.11.2025, office of the
DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Barkas, Chandrayangutta,
Hyderabad, filed by the respondent authorities, makes it clear
that the petitioner was sanctioned 60 days earned leave w.e.f.
05.09.1998 to 03.11.1998 with permission to avail 04.09.1998
vide Force Order No.305/1998-05 for the week ending on
5.9.1998. Thus, in view of the said letter, the contention of the
petitioner is watered down.
17. In the above-mentioned circumstances, the Writ Petition
is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 07.04.2026
BDR
NOTE: LR copy is to be marked.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date: 07.04.2026
BDR
