The Delhi High Court has observed that dismissal from service is an “extreme step” that disrupts the life of the employee and their family, and should not be taken casually—particularly when allegations do not involve moral turpitude or financial impropriety.
A bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while setting aside the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) employee, directed his immediate reinstatement and restoration of all consequential service benefits, except back wages, in an order delivered on October 13.
“Dismissal from service is an extreme step. It throws the family of the employee into disarray and brings to an ignominious and abrupt halt the family’s source of livelihood. It is not, therefore, a step to be routinely taken, especially where the allegation against the employee does not involve an element of moral turpitude or financial or like impropriety,” the bench said.
The court stressed that such punitive measures must be taken with caution, ensuring that the punishment is proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
The CRPF employee was dismissed on three charges —
- Marrying another woman during the subsistence of his first marriage,
- Not informing his employer before the second marriage, and
- Availing child care allowance for the daughter of his second wife before formally adopting her.
The petitioner, represented by advocate K. K. Sharma, argued that his first marriage had been dissolved through a dissolution deed executed on stamp paper in the presence of the village panchayat, prior to his second marriage.
The bench noted that this assertion had been recorded in the dismissal order and was never found incorrect by the disciplinary authority. The court said that at the very least, it indicated that the employee’s second marriage was bona fide, as he genuinely believed his first marriage had been validly dissolved.
“To dismiss the petitioner from service in such circumstances would, in our considered opinion, be unjustified,” the judges observed.
Clarifying the scope of its ruling, the bench said it was not delving into whether the first marriage had been legally dissolved under personal law, but only examining whether dismissal from service was warranted.
“Dismissing the petitioner from service would result in a travesty of justice,” the court said.
Regarding the third charge, the court said the petitioner’s claim for child care allowance could not be treated as invalid, as the girl was indeed the biological daughter of his second wife. Even if the formal adoption came later, the court found no deliberate misrepresentation on his part.
Setting aside the dismissal order, the High Court directed that the petitioner be treated as having continued in service, with full continuity of service, seniority, and pay fixation benefits. However, it clarified that no arrears of pay would be granted for the period he was out of service.
