The Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the High Court that had directed the imposition of a lesser penalty on a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable dismissed for contracting a second marriage. The Apex Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its power of judicial review and emphasized the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law).
The appeal, filed by the Union of India, challenged the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court which, affirming the Single Judge’s view, held that the dismissal of the Respondent, Pranab Kumar Nath, was “much too harsh a penalty.” The High Court had directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass orders imposing a lesser penalty.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court acted as an appellate authority and erred in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Supreme Court restored the order of dismissal.
Background of the Case
The Respondent, Pranab Kumar Nath, joined the CISF as a Constable on July 22, 2006. His wife, Mrs. Chandana Nath, filed a written complaint stating that while the Respondent was posted at the 3rd NDRF Battalion, Mundali, Odisha, he had married another woman, Mrs. Parthana Das, on March 14, 2016.
Consequently, a Charge Memorandum was framed against the Respondent on July 7, 2016. The charges included:
- Article of Charge-I: Entering into a marriage with another woman while having a spouse living, in violation of Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001.
- Article of Charge-II: Neglecting his wife and minor daughter, amounting to grave misconduct and indiscipline.
An Enquiry Officer submitted a report on May 19, 2017, confirming the allegations. Based on the findings, the Senior Commandant (Disciplinary Authority) dismissed the Respondent from service on July 1, 2017. This dismissal was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.
High Court’s Intervention
The Respondent challenged the dismissal before the High Court. The Learned Single Judge opined that removal from service would be more appropriate than dismissal and remanded the matter.
The Union of India appealed to the Division Bench, which also held that while entering into a second marriage was an act of indiscipline, it was “not such a serious act of misconduct to warrant this punishment.” The Division Bench reasoned that the financial difficulty imposed on the Respondent and his family would be disproportionate to the offence and directed the authority to impose an appropriate lesser punishment.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions, specifically Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which deals with disqualification. The rule states that no person who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living shall be eligible for appointment to the Force.
The Court observed:
“It is generally understood that acts, whether in personal or professional life, if they involve the possibility of domestic discord, financial vulnerability or divided responsibilities, they have the potential to adversely impact operational efficacy given mental/psychological stability is key.”
Scope of Judicial Review
The Bench reiterated that under Article 226, the High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to judicial review and it is not akin to an appellate court. The Court cited several precedents to buttress this point:
- B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995): The Court held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil (2000): It was observed that the departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and adequacy of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court.
- Union of India v. K.G. Soni (2006): The Court held that unless the punishment shocks the conscience of the court, there is no scope for interference.
- Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015): The Court listed parameters where the High Court cannot interfere, including reappreciating evidence or going into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
Application of Law
The Supreme Court held that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench erred in their approach. The Court stated:
“Clause 18-B is a clause prescribing penal consequences for an action and it is trite in law that any provision of law or rule framed under a statute prescribing penal consequences, has to be strictly construed…”
Applying the maxim “dura lex sed lex”, the Court noted:
“Inconvenience or unpleasant consequences of violation of law cannot detract from the prescription of the law.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and restored the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional authorities.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Pranab Kumar Nath
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 15068 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18702 of 2023)
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1479
