Performing Second Marriage While First One Subsists Is A 'Blunder' But Dismissing From Service Is 'Shocking': Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 23) held that though a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is not permissible under the Hindu religion, however, a public servant committing such a 'blunder' cannot be subjected to a 'shocking' punishment of dismissal from service. 

A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar ordered the reinstatement of one Santosh Chavan, who initially joined as a Police Constable with the Railway Police Force (RPF) at Bilaspur and was last transferred to Kalyan in Thane district as a junior clerk. He was removed from service on the ground that he performed a second marriage despite the subsistence of his first marriage. 

According to Chavan, who was represented by advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, he got married on April 21, 2008. However, due to some discord, the couple parted ways and have now indulged into litigation. It was in 2016, that Chavan married for the second time, even before his first marriage could be legally dissolved. Thus, the employer initiated a 'preliminary enquiry' against Chavan for violation of the Railways Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

An officer was appointed for conducting an enquiry, who recorded statements of witnesses and also of the petitioner Chavan and then filed a chargesheet against him for violating the Rules, 1968. Subsequently, the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, Kalyan in February 2021, after considering that Chavan had at least 19 years of service pending, awarded a punishment of stoppage of one increment.

However, the Revisional Authority of the RPF 'suo motu' took cognisance of the issue, and ordered a fresh enquiry against Chavan and also appointed a new enquiry officer. The authority had asked the new officer to recommend a 'major' punishment for Chavan as the erstwhile officer had recommended a 'minor penalty.' Subsequently, a fresh chargesheet was issued to Chavan and an order was passed dismissing him from service from March 2025.

Challenging his dismissal, Chavan who initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) but got no relief, petitioned the High Court.  

Before the High Court, Chandrachud argued that he is left with no employment at present and needs salary for survival. He accepted his client's guilt of performing a second marriage despite the first one still subsisting, yet he argued that the same cannot be branded as a 'grave and serious' mistake for which he should be subjected to dismissal from service. 

"Dismissing from service is nothing but a civil death..." Chandrachud argued. 

The judges, while dictating the order in open court, took on record the contention raised by Chandrachud that in case in future, a court orders him to pay maintenance to the first wife, from where would he arrange the same.

"He should not have entered into a relationship with a person with whom he has got married by performing the Hindu rites, when his earlier marriage was still subsisting. Be that as it may, on one hand he stands a serious risk of paying maintenance to the first wife as and when an order is passed by the court. On the other hand, he has to feed himself and the woman whom he calls his wife. The second marriage in Hindu religion is impermissible. By the order of dismissal from service, he has lost his source of income and is virtually starving with the second wife, whom he has married as per the Hindu rites and cannot now desert. So also, when such an act is committed by him it cannot be termed as such a grave and serious act which can be termed as an act deserving to be met with an order of dismissal," Justice Ghuge observed. 

Taking a holistic view of the facts of the case, the bench further held that the punishment of dismissal from service was 'harsh' and was not 'commensurate' with Chavan's act. 

"There is no reason to not believe that the petitioner has committed a blunder. He could have waited till a divorce was granted and then could have entered into a second marriage...What has happened has happened and we now have to assess whether dismissal was commensurate with his act...Dismissal of service is a shocking punishment in the facts and circumstances of this case," the bench held. 

The judges noted that Chavan has agreed to accept the stoppage of increments for at least three years and also that he did not press for the back wages from March 2025, when he was removed from service.

"We are of the view that this could be a commensurate punishment because if he is dismissed from service he would be in grave difficulty in view of maintaining the first wife and supporting himself and the second wife, whom he now cannot desert. He needs to earn a salary which would resolve all his financial problems. He would be rendered to penury if removed from his service," the bench opined while ordering Chavan's reinstatement from May 2. 

As regards the contention of the Railways through advocate TJ Pandian that the order to conduct a fresh enquiry could not be faulted with as the authorities concerned exercised their 'revision' powers under the appropriate Rules, the bench said that the rules were misread.

While Pandian argued that initially only a 'preliminary' enquiry was conducted and on exercise of revision powers, a 'full fledged' enquiry was ordered, the bench opined that the manner in which the preliminary enquiry was conducted i.e. by recording statements of witnesses and also of the Petitioner, serving a chargesheet, proper hearing and then the award of punishment was imposed - showed that the preliminary enquiry itself was a 'full fledged' one.

The judges, while referring to the provisions of the law governing revision of orders, pointed out that there was no power conferred upon the Revision Authority to order fresh enquiry and that it only empowered the said authority to revise, modify or recommend some changes in a punishment order, after consulting the concerned Divisional Commissioner. 

With these observations, the bench partly allowed Chavan's plea. 

Appearance:

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud appeared for the Petitioner. 

Advocate TJ Pandian represented the Indian Railways. 

Case Title: Santosh Motiram Chavan vs Union of India (Writ Petition 540 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 208