Bigamy Strictly Prohibited: Allahabad High Court Upholds CRPF Constable's Dismissal Under 'Minor Punishments' Provision
The Allahabad High Court has held that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force can be dismissed from service under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which is headed 'Minor punishments'. It held that the punishments listed in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) are awardable in addition to, or in lieu of, suspension or dismissal, and are not the only punishments...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force can be dismissed from service under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which is headed 'Minor punishments'.
It held that the punishments listed in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) are awardable in addition to, or in lieu of, suspension or dismissal, and are not the only punishments the provision permits.
Rule 15 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 bars a member of the Force who has a wife living from contracting another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, even where the personal law applicable to him permits such a marriage. Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 places a similar restriction on government servants.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,
“it is apparent that the offence of bigamy i.e. the second marriage contracted during the subsistence of previous marriage by any member of the disciplinary force like CRPF, which is categorically prohibited in the CRPF Rules is a misconduct and attracts the minor punishment under section 11 of CRPF Act as has already been noticed by the Apex court in Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, (supra) that the punishment provided under clause (a) to (e) of section 11 (1) are the punishment in addition to or in lieu of the punishment of suspension or dismissal. Thus, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal cannot be awarded under section 11 of the Act, which is categorically provided in section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act.”
Petitioner was appointed as Constable (Jal Vahak) in the CRPF in 1988. He had married Urmila Devi in 1976 as per Hindu rites and customs and had children from that marriage. In 1989, after his recruitment, she left the matrimonial home with the children and could not be traced by him.
In 1992, petitioner married Pratima Devi without any permission from the department, and had her name entered as his nominee in his service record. Urmila Devi's name found no mention in that record.
A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in 2011. In the disciplinary proceedings he admitted both marriages, and admitted that he had neither sought the department's permission for the second marriage nor informed it of the marriage. The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved. Petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice, and when heard by the disciplinary authority stated that he had taken no divorce.
By order dated 08.07.2011 he was removed from service under Section 11 of the CRPF Act read with Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules. His appeal and his revision were rejected in 2013.
Before the High Court, petitioner argued that he had intimated the department of his second marriage by bringing his second wife on record as his nominee, and that no action was taken against him for a long period thereafter. It was argued that even on the charge being proved, only the punishments in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) could have been awarded, and that removal from service was disproportionate and excessive.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that a second marriage during the subsistence of the first disqualifies a person from remaining in a disciplined force such as the CRPF, which requires strict moral character of its members.
The Court observed that petitioner and his wife are Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, under which a second marriage during the subsistence of the first without a decree of divorce is prohibited and is void ab initio. It held that the second marriage breached Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules and Rule 21 of the CCS Conduct Rules and amounted to misconduct punishable under Section 11 of the CRPF Act.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, where it was held that the words “in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal” in Section 11(1) empower the prescribed authorities to award dismissal or suspension, with the punishments in clauses (a) to (e) awardable in addition to or in place of it.
It also referred to Union of India and Others vs Rama Shankar, where a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that dismissal on a proven charge of bigamy against a member of a disciplined force could not be called disproportionate.
The Court observed that petitioner could not show that he had ever disclosed, while getting Pratima Devi's name entered as his nominee, that she was his second wife. It held that he had got her name recorded only by disclosing that she was his wife.
“Had this fact been disclosed by the petitioner that she is the second wife after his nomination in service record, disciplinary action would have been taken against him at that stage itself. Non-disclosure of the aforesaid facts to the department, is an act of deliberate concealment on the part of the petitioner, which could be traced out in the year 2010-11.”
On the question of the quantum of punishment, the Court held,
“..it is a settled principle of law that the proportionality of the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority can be looked into by the courts only when it shocks the conscience of the court and which is shockingly disproportionate, or when it is impermissible under the Rules.”
Holding that petitioner had brought no circumstance from which the punishment could be inferred to be excessive, disproportionate or impermissible under the relevant provisions, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others