Telangana High Court Upholds Removal Of CRPF Personnel For 'Grave Misconduct' Of Contracting Second Marriage Despite Subsistence Of First

The Telangana High Court has upheld the removal of a CRPF cook from service on charges of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, holding that the departmental authorities had acted on sufficient material and that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity in the enquiry.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed:

“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.”

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that the departmental proceedings had been properly conducted and that the punishment of removal did not warrant interference.

The petitioner, Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade, had joined the Central Reserve Police Force on 04.12.1990 as a Cook in 100 Battalion, Nagpur Centre. He approached the High Court challenging the order dated 22.02.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority removing him from service, as affirmed by the appellate authority on 04.05.2001, and sought reinstatement with back wages.

According to the charge, the petitioner had married one Sangeeta alias Pradhya on 30.03.1997, and while that marriage was still subsisting, contracted another marriage with one Sangita, daughter of Janrao Gawai, on 09.09.1998, without obtaining divorce from his first wife or prior permission from the Government. The petitioner's divorce from his first wife was stated to have been finalized only on 10.04.2000.

The petitioner's case before the Court was that the departmental enquiry was perverse and unsupported by concrete evidence. He contended that there was no legally admissible proof of a second marriage except a complaint made by the alleged second wife. He also argued that the marriage entry in the Gram Panchayat records had been made without substantial proof and with a mala fide intention to trap him and grab his property. He further relied on an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, which had set aside an order granting maintenance in proceedings initiated under Section 125 CrPC.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental authorities ought to have appreciated that the allegation of plural marriage had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was also argued that the findings of the enquiry officer were erroneous and that the petitioner had not been given a proper opportunity in the enquiry.

The Union of India and CRPF authorities opposed the writ petition, contending that the enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that there was no procedural irregularity. According to the respondents, the charge was not based merely on a complaint, but also on supporting material such as a wedding card, marriage certificate, photographs, and a verification report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, which clearly stated that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage while his first wife was still alive.

The respondents further pointed out that Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 prohibits a member of the Force, who has a living wife, from contracting another marriage without first obtaining permission of the Government. They contended that the petitioner neither obtained a divorce from his first wife before the second marriage nor sought such permission from the competent authority.

On facts, the High Court noted that the petitioner had placed considerable reliance on decisions dealing with the effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings or the need for authors of documents to be examined. However, the Court found those authorities inapplicable. It held that the present matter was not one involving parallel criminal and departmental proceedings on the same evidence, but a case of disciplinary action based on a departmental enquiry.

The Court also rejected the argument founded on the revisional court's order in the maintenance case. It observed that the revisional order setting aside the maintenance award was not on merits, and that in any event the petitioner had not even placed the maintenance court's order before the writ court for proper scrutiny. The Court further noted that before approaching the High Court, the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of revision under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

Significantly, the Court held that the departmental authorities were entitled to consider the documentary material produced in the enquiry, including the marriage certificate, wedding card and photographs, even if such material might not be tested in the same manner as in a criminal trial. The Court reiterated that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, that the strict provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply, and that what is required is compliance with the principles of natural justice. On the facts, the Court found that ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner and that natural justice had not been violated.

The Court also dealt with the petitioner's specific plea that he was on duty on 09.09.1998, the date of the alleged second marriage. Referring to a letter dated 29.11.2025 from the office of the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Barkas, Hyderabad, the Court noted that the petitioner had in fact been sanctioned 60 days' earned leave from 05.09.1998 to 03.11.1998, with permission to avail leave from 04.09.1998. The Court held that this material “watered down” the petitioner's contention that he could not have contracted the second marriage on the relevant date.

Observing that the petitioner belonged to a disciplined force where such misconduct is viewed seriously, the Court ultimately found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without costs.

Case Title: Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No.9473 of 2005

Bench: Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

Appearance: Sri J.V. Prasad for the petitioner; Mrs. Anjali Agarwal, Standing Counsel for Central Government, for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order