The High Court of Delhi, in a recent judgment, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Constable, upholding his dismissal from service for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was subsisting. The Division Bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, held that a rule disqualifying a person with a living spouse from appointment also applies post-appointment and that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved through an extra-judicial “dissolution deed.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a Constable with the CISF, was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry following an allegation that he had entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of his first. The enquiry concluded that he had violated Rule 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, leading to the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service.
The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court of Delhi through the present writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner did not dispute the fact of his second marriage. His sole contention was that his first marriage had been dissolved prior to the second one by way of a “marriage dissolution deed,” which was signed before “social people and witnesses.” The respondents maintained that the dismissal was in accordance with the rules.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court bench found no merit in the petitioner’s case. The court unequivocally rejected the validity of the dissolution deed, stating, “Needless to say, a duly solemnized Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved in such a fashion.” It further observed, “We are unaware of any law or principle by which a duly solemnized Hindu marriage can be dissolved by signing a marriage dissolution deed in front of village persons.”
The court then addressed the interpretation of Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, which pertains to disqualification from appointment for individuals who have a living spouse and contract another marriage. While acknowledging that the rule appears to apply at the stage of appointment, the court relied on its own precedent in a 2008 case involving a Border Security Force Head Constable.
In that case, which dealt with a similar provision, the court had held that the disqualification extends to individuals already in service. The judgment in the present case quoted the reasoning from the precedent:
“No doubt, this Rule is contained in the chapter ‘Recruitment’ and stipulates that any person who enters into marriage while having a spouse shall not be eligible for appointment. However, if a person with 2 wives is not eligible even for appointment, obviously is not permitted to do so after getting appointment. It would be totally absurd to say that he would be entitled to perform 2nd marriage after he entered the service… The rationale and objective of the Rule is abundantly clear, namely, a person with 2 wives when not made even eligible for appointment and recruitment to the service, he cannot enter into 2nd marriage after his appointment as well.”
The bench, noting that the Special Leave Petition against the earlier judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirmed that this precedent was binding. “Clearly, therefore, Rule 18 of the CISF Rules would also cover the case in which a second marriage is contracted by the employee after he/she joined service,” the court concluded.
On the merits of the case, the court found that the petitioner had “no defence.”
Final Decision
While delivering the judgment, the court noted that in the precedent case, the punishment imposed was compulsory retirement. However, the bench found itself unable to grant similar relief to the petitioner. “Unfortunately, we cannot even reduce the punishment awarded on the petitioner as he has not rendered the qualifying service for compulsory retirement,” the court stated.
Finding the case to be fully covered by the established precedent and observing no valid defence on merits, the High Court concluded, “We are, therefore, unable to come to the aid of the petitioner.”
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
