The Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still legally subsisting and without obtaining prior permission from the department.
In its order dated August 13, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the constable’s removal from service, holding that contracting another marriage while having a living spouse amounted to misconduct under the service rules applicable to CRPF personnel.
The Court also rejected the argument that dismissal from service was excessive or disproportionate, observing that no circumstances had been established that would justify interference with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Second Marriage Contracted Without Divorce
According to the case records, the CRPF personnel had married several years before joining the Force. His first wife subsequently left the matrimonial home along with their children, and he claimed that he was unable to locate her despite efforts to trace her.
However, the first marriage was never legally dissolved through a decree of divorce.
A few years later, while the first marriage continued to legally subsist, the constable contracted another marriage. He neither obtained a divorce from his first wife nor secured prior permission from the competent departmental authority before entering into the second marriage.
The second wife’s name was subsequently entered into his service records as a nominee. However, according to the Court, the department was not informed that she was his second wife or that his earlier marriage continued to subsist.
Departmental Inquiry Leads to Dismissal
The matter eventually came to the notice of the authorities, following which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the CRPF personnel.
During the departmental inquiry, the allegation relating to the second marriage was found proved. The disciplinary authority subsequently dismissed him from service in 2011 under the applicable provisions governing misconduct by members of the CRPF.
His departmental appeal and subsequent review were also rejected, prompting him to approach the Allahabad High Court challenging the dismissal.
Constable Challenges Punishment as Disproportionate
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that dismissal from service was an excessive punishment considering the circumstances of the case.
He submitted that his first wife had left the matrimonial home and could not be traced. He also contended that the department had effectively been informed about his subsequent marriage because the second wife’s name had been entered as a nominee in his service records.
Another argument raised before the Court concerned the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner maintained that the nomination had remained in the official records for a considerable period before departmental action was eventually taken.
He therefore sought interference by the High Court with the punishment imposed upon him.
CRPF Rules Prohibit Second Marriage
The High Court rejected the arguments and examined the restrictions imposed on personnel serving in disciplined forces.
The Court referred to Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which places restrictions on a member of the Force contracting another marriage while having a living spouse.
It also considered Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which regulates marriage involving government servants who already have a spouse living.
The Court noted that members of the CRPF are required to comply with the service rules governing their personal conduct and cannot enter into another marriage contrary to those provisions.
Since the earlier marriage had not been legally dissolved, the subsequent marriage was contracted while the first spouse was still living and the marriage remained legally subsisting.
Prior Departmental Permission Mandatory
An important aspect highlighted by the High Court was the requirement to obtain permission from the competent authority.
The Court observed that even in circumstances where personal law might permit another marriage, a member of the Force would still be required to comply with the applicable service rules and obtain the necessary departmental permission.
Such restrictions are considered particularly important for members of disciplined forces, where standards of conduct extend beyond matters directly connected with operational duties.
The Court therefore found that contracting the second marriage without satisfying the legal and departmental requirements constituted misconduct capable of attracting disciplinary punishment.
Court Notes Concealment From Department
The High Court also took serious note of the manner in which the second wife’s details had been entered into the service records.
According to the Court, merely recording a person’s name as the employee’s wife and nominee did not amount to informing the department that the individual was a second wife while an earlier marriage remained legally valid.
The Court observed that had the constable clearly disclosed the complete circumstances when making the nomination, departmental proceedings could have been initiated at that stage itself.
It consequently regarded the failure to disclose the true status of the second marriage as deliberate concealment rather than proper notification to the authorities.
This finding also weakened the petitioner’s argument that the department had known about the marriage for years but had failed to act.
High Court Refuses to Interfere With Dismissal
On the question of punishment, the High Court reiterated that courts exercising judicial review do not ordinarily substitute their own assessment of the appropriate disciplinary penalty.
Interference with the quantum of punishment is generally justified only when a penalty is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court or when the punishment is otherwise contrary to the applicable legal provisions.
In the present case, the Court found no such circumstances.
The misconduct had been established through departmental proceedings, and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that dismissal was legally impermissible or grossly disproportionate to the charge proved against him.
The High Court consequently dismissed the writ petition and upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to remove the CRPF constable from service.
Strict Conduct Standards for Personnel of Disciplined Forces
The ruling reinforces the stringent conduct requirements applicable to personnel serving in the CRPF and other disciplined forces.
While marriage is ordinarily considered part of an individual’s personal life, serving personnel remain subject to specific conduct rules that may regulate such matters when they have implications for service discipline, integrity and official records.
The judgment also underlines the importance of making complete disclosures to departmental authorities. Merely updating nomination or family records without revealing material circumstances may not satisfy the obligation to inform the department.
For serving personnel, the ruling serves as a reminder that contracting another marriage while an existing marriage remains legally subsisting can result in serious disciplinary consequences, particularly when the required departmental permission has not been obtained and relevant facts have not been fully disclosed.
