In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable who was found to be in a live-in relationship with another woman while being married. The case, W.P.(S) No. 2250 of 2021, was heard by Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak.
The petitioner, a former constable in the Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP), challenged his dismissal from service on charges of bigamy. The case originated from a complaint lodged on July 10, 2017, by a woman alleging that the petitioner, despite being married with two children, had entered into a live-in relationship with her.
The complainant accused the petitioner of torturing her after she became pregnant. An FIR was registered under sections 341, 323, 376, 313, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Following an inquiry, the petitioner was suspended on June 4, 2018, and a departmental proceeding was initiated.
The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, dismissed the petitioner from service on February 11, 2021. The petitioner’s subsequent appeal and revision were also rejected, leading to the filing of this writ petition.
Mr. Satish Prasad, representing the petitioner, argued that the dismissal was untenable as the charge memo did not specifically mention bigamy. He contended that a live-in relationship does not equate to marriage and cited the petitioner’s acquittal in the related criminal case.
On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, representing the State, argued that the petitioner’s conduct violated Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual.
The court, in its decision, held that:
1. The petitioner’s admission of being in a live-in relationship with another woman while married was sufficient grounds for dismissal under the relevant service rules.
2. The court observed, “It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed.”
3. The acquittal in the criminal case was not grounds for quashing the dismissal order, as the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings differ.
4. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Samar Bahadur Singh vs. State of UP (2011), emphasizing that acquittal in a criminal case has no bearing on departmental proceedings.
5. The High Court refrained from interfering with the concurrent findings of the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities, citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015).
Justice Pathak concluded, “I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned penalty order dated 14.03.2017 affirmed upto the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, which requires no interference by this Court.”
This judgment underscores the higher standards of conduct expected from police personnel and the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings in matters of discipline and service rules.
