The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, has held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage without prior departmental permission constitutes misconduct under Rule 15 of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955 and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and attracts the penalty of dismissal from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Dismissing a writ petition filed by a former CRPF Constable challenging his removal from service, the court affirmed that the penalty of dismissal can be lawfully awarded under Section 11 of the Act and is not disproportionate for bigamy in a disciplined force.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Prabhu Singh, was appointed as a Constable (Jal Vahak) in the CRPF in 1988. Prior to his appointment, he had married Smt. Urmila Devi in 1976 according to Hindu rites and customs, and had children with her. In 1989, following his recruitment, his first wife left the matrimonial home along with the children, and he could not locate her despite searching.
In 1992, the petitioner solemnized a second marriage with Smt. Pratima Devi without seeking prior permission from or informing the department. He subsequently recorded Smt. Pratima Devi as his nominee in his service records without disclosing that she was his second wife or mentioning his first wife.
Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and a charge sheet was issued on January 8, 2011. During the inquiry, the petitioner admitted to his first marriage in 1976 and his second marriage in 1992 while his first marriage subsisted. In his report dated June 6, 2011, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. Following a show cause notice dated June 14, 2011, and a personal hearing, the disciplinary authority (Commandant, 101 Battalion, RAF/CRPF) passed an order on July 8, 2011, removing the petitioner from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi on June 4, 2013, and his revision was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, RAF/CRPF, New Delhi on December 13, 2013. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the removal and appellate/revisional orders.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after contracting the second marriage, the petitioner had intimated the department by entering his second wife’s name as a nominee in his service records. It was argued that despite this entry, no action was taken for a long period until disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2011. The petitioner contended that even if the charge of second marriage was proved, only minor punishments listed under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act—such as reduction in rank, fine not exceeding one month’s pay, confinement, or removal from an office of distinction—could be imposed. He argued that removal from service was disproportionate, excessive, and impermissible under Section 11 of the Act.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules categorically prohibits plural marriages unless permitted under personal laws and authorized with prior departmental permission. It was argued that a member of a disciplined force who contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage loses eligibility to remain in service due to the requirement of strict moral character. The respondents further contended that Section 11 of the CRPF Act provides that punishments under clauses (a) to (e) are awarded in addition to or in lieu of suspension or dismissal, thereby explicitly empowering the authority to award the punishment of dismissal for misconduct.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that both the petitioner and his first wife are Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, which prohibits a second marriage during the subsistence of the first without a decree of divorce from a competent court, rendering such a second marriage void ab initio.
The court analyzed Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which mandates:
“15. Plural marriages .-No member of the Force who has wife living shall contract any other marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to the member of the Force.”
The court noted that Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 similarly restricts marriage with a person having a spouse living. Reading these rules together, the court held that a member of the CRPF is prohibited from contracting a second marriage while in service without prior permission, and violating this prohibition constitutes misconduct punishable under Section 11 of the CRPF Act.
Examining Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, the court rejected the contention that dismissal could not be awarded under this section. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and others vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (2005) 13 SCC 228, the court highlighted:
“The use of words ‘in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal’, appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be awarded.”
The court further cited Ghulam Mohd. Bhat to reiterate:
“…Section 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmental inquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10.”
Regarding the scope of misconduct, the High Court referred to M. M. Malhotra vs. Union of India (2005) 8 SCC 351, where the Supreme Court observed:
“The word “misconduct” is not capable of precise definition. But at the same time though incapable of precise definition, the word “misconduct” on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. The act complained of must bear a forbidden quality or character and its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.”
On the issue of whether dismissal for bigamy is disproportionate in a disciplined force, the High Court referred to the Gauhati High Court Division Bench decision in Union of India and Others vs. Rama Shankar (2012 SCC OnLine Gau 943), which held:
“When bigamy is expressly prohibited under the law (except the two exceptions mentioned in the proviso which are not attracted and applicable in the present case), it would not be correct to say that punishment of dismissal from service on a proven charge of bigamy would be disproportionate on the ground that under the criminal law bigamy is a decompoundable offence, more so when the delinquent was a member of a disciplined force like the Assam Rifles. Continuation of such a person in the force may have an adverse affect on the overall image of the force. It may affect the public perception that a person guilty of bigamy can still continue as a member of such force. Moreover, if may have a cascading effect on the overall morale and discipline of the force.”
The High Court also noted its earlier decision in Veer Pal Singh vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra (2006 (5) ALJ 307), which held that a government servant guilty of bigamy cannot be retained in service with a lesser sentence.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding nomination in service records, the court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had disclosed to the department that Smt. Pratima Devi was his second wife. The court held that non-disclosure constituted deliberate concealment on his part.
Decision
The High Court held that the charge of bigamy was categorically proved against the petitioner and that the penalty of dismissal from service was legally permissible under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Finding that the punishment was neither excessive, disproportionate, nor shocking to the conscience of the court, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case No.: WRIT – A No. – 14282 of 2014
Bench: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
Date: August 13, 2026
