The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who contracted a second marriage while his first wife was still alive, ruling that the action constituted misconduct and that removal from service was a legally sound penalty under force regulations.
In an order issued on August 13, Justice Anish Kumar Gupta rejected the former constable’s petition challenging his termination. The court stated that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary authority’s penalty was excessive, disproportionate, or contrary to statutory provisions, noting that judicial intervention in departmental punishments is warranted only when a penalty shocks the conscience of the court or violates governing rules.
Rules Governing Misconduct and Marriage
The court highlighted that Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules explicitly forbids any member of the force from marrying while a spouse is living. Furthermore, because the constable and both women are Hindus, their marital status is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, which renders any second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of a prior marriage void without a legal decree of divorce.
Addressing the former constable’s argument that he had informed the department by entering his second wife as a nominee in his service records, the court observed that he had engaged in deliberate concealment. Justice Gupta pointed out that the petitioner merely listed the woman as his wife without disclosing her status as a second spouse, preventing the department from taking immediate disciplinary action until the omission was uncovered around 2010 or 2011. The court noted that had the full facts been disclosed at the time of nomination, disciplinary steps would have been initiated immediately.
Background of the Departmental Action
The petitioner originally joined the CRPF as a constable in 1988. According to court records, his first wife departed the matrimonial home alongside their children, and he claimed that subsequent efforts to locate her were unsuccessful. A few years later, while his initial marriage remained legally active, he remarried without seeking prior clearance or notifying the department.
Departmental inquiry proceedings were formally launched against the constable in 2011. After an inquiry officer found the charge substantiated, the disciplinary authority issued an order removing him from service. Although the petitioner argued that the delay in initiating proceedings rendered his removal disproportionate, the court concluded that bigamy constitutes misconduct under CRPF rules and that the resulting dismissal was fully permissible under the CRPF Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the removal orders.
