CRPF constable remarries even as ‘first wife alive’, Allahabad High Court backs dismissal

Few years later, while his first marriage was still subsisting, the petitioner allegedly remarried with taking permission from the department or informing it. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2011. The inquiry officer found the charge to be proved, following which the disciplinary authority removed him from service.

‘Second wife’s name in records’

The counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, stated that after his second marriage, he had intimated the department with regard to it by bringing on record the second wife as a nominee in his service record.

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta said Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules prohibits a member of the force who has a living wife from contracting another marriage.

It was stated that despite the aforesaid intimation, no action was taken against him for a sufficiently long period but all of sudden, in 2011, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was disproportionately removed from service.

The court noted that Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules expressly prohibits a member of the force who has a living wife from contracting another marriage. It further observed that the petitioner and both women were Hindus and were governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, under which a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, without a decree of divorce, is prohibited and void.

Deliberate concealment: HC

“It is apparent that he has got her name recorded by only disclosing that she is his wife. Had this fact been disclosed by the petitioner that she is the second wife after his nomination in service record, disciplinary action would have been taken against him at that stage itself. Non-disclosure of the aforesaid facts to the department, is an act of deliberate concealment on the part of the petitioner, which could be traced out in the year 2010-11,” the court observed.

It referred to several judgments and noted that the second marriage during the subsistence of previous marriage by any member of a force, like the CRPF, is prohibited under the CRPF Rules, amounts to misconduct and attracts minor punishment.

Rejecting the argument that dismissal was disproportionate, the court said its judicial review is required only when the punishment “shocks the conscience of the court” or is otherwise impermissible under the rules.

The court remarked that the petitioner failed to bring to its notice any circumstances from which it could be inferred that the punishment was excessive, disproportionate or impermissible under the provisions. It thus dismissed the petition and upheld the orders removing him from service.