Contracting Second Marriage During Subsistence Of First Constitutes Grave Misconduct Justifying Compulsory Retirement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage constitutes grave misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, justifying penalties such as compulsory retirement for members of disciplined forces.

Background Facts 

The employee served as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the SHAR Centre in Sriharikota. He contracted a second marriage with a woman constable while in service, despite his first marriage still being legally subsisting.

He was found guilty of misconduct for violating the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and the CISF Rules following a departmental inquiry. Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service in 2017. His subsequent appeal and a revision petition were dismissed, upholding the punishment.

Therefore, the employee filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging these orders. A Single Judge set aside the punishment in 2024, ruling that compulsory retirement was a disproportionately harsh penalty. The judge remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to impose a lesser punishment.

Aggrieved by the Single judge's decision, the CISF Department filed the appeal before the Division Bench.

The CISF argued that the CISF is a paramilitary force where discipline is not just a formality but the backbone of the institution. Any leniency toward misconduct could have serious consequences for the force as a whole. The Department further submitted that even the Single Judge had acknowledged that the employee had violated Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, which clearly bar a government servant from entering into a second marriage while the first is still valid. According to the CISF, when a member of a disciplined force is found guilty of entering into a second marriage, penalties like dismissal or removal are neither harsh nor unexpected.

On the other hand, the employee contended that the penalty imposed on him was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. He explained that his marital situation was a result of personal circumstances and family pressure, which led him to enter into a second marriage despite his first marriage. He maintained that the Single Judge's decision to set aside the major penalty and remand the case for a reconsideration of punishment was well-reasoned, requiring no interference from the higher court.

Findings of the Court

The judgment in Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India was relied upon wherein it was observed that CISF Rules restrict the bar on second marriages only to the time of appointment. But the Court explained that this cannot be taken literally. It referred to Ex. Head Constable Bazir Singh v. UOI, where the Court reasoned that if a person would be disqualified from joining the Force for having a subsisting first marriage, hence he cannot be allowed to contract a second marriage after joining.

Hence, employee cannot do something in service that would have made him ineligible for recruitment. Therefore, entering into a second marriage makes the employee unfit to continue in service.

It was held by the court that opting for the second marriage, during the subsistence of the first marriage is an indiscipline. It was further noted that entering into a second marriage while the first is still valid is not just a matter of morality, it is a punishable offence under criminal law. It was observed that the employee's claim that his second marriage had no connection to his official duties could not be accepted.

Further in case of J.Bernard Philip Leo vs. The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records and Ors., the High Court of Madras, while considering the case of a government servant charged with bigamous marriage observed that the second marriage during the life time of the first wife constitutes a grave misconduct under the Rules.

Therefore, it was held that the disciplinary authority had rightly considered the employee's service record and family responsibilities before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, which is a lesser punishment than dismissal. Consequently, the Single Judge's order was set aside by the Division Bench.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal filed by the CISF was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The Director General, CISF & Ors. vs. Kudipudi Suri Babu

Case No. : WRIT APPEAL NO: 48/2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Venna Hemanth Kumar (Central Government Counsel)

Counsel for the Respondents : P S P Suresh Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order