Supreme Court upholds dismissal of CISF constable for bigamy, says ‘law is harsh but it’s the law’

Background

The first wife of the constable had lodged a complaint that her husband, while on posting in Odisha, contracted a second marriage. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was deputed to look into the case. After considering the facts of the case, the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, all dismissed him from service for having entered into a second marriage while still having a living spouse.

The court held that the CISF rules are not a moral censure, but simply a service condition. (Image generated using AI)

The high court held that dismissal from service is the most extreme punishment that can be imposed, and while entering into a second marriage can be termed as an act of indiscipline, yet it is not such a serious act of misconduct to warrant this punishment.

It was further held that the financial difficulty which would be imposed upon him as a result of this, as also upon his family, would be disproportionate to the offence. The court therefore remanded the matter to the authority concerned for imposition of appropriate punishment.

Findings

The Supreme Court noted that the employer is within their rights to prescribe rules as long as the conditions are not arbitrary, disproportionate or violative of constitutional protections.

“It is also to be noted that these rules are not a moral censure, but simply a service condition, which, it need not be stated, an employer is perfectly within their rights to prescribe, so long as such conditions are not arbitrary, disproportionate or violative of constitutional protections, which in any event stand taken before us,” the court observed.

The court held that clause 18-B of the CISF Rules, which deals with disqualification of a recruit, is a clause prescribing penal consequences for an action.

“It is trite in law that any provision of law or rule framed under a statute prescribing penal consequences, has to be strictly construed for the conditions that can trigger such a clause must be flowing from the words employed therein,” the court said.

The court further added that when such a rule presents any ambiguity, the interpretation which favours the person sought to be penalised, is to be preferred.

The court held that the words of the clause are clear and there was no argument as to the proper procedure not been followed in the disciplinary proceedings.

“The maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard, but it is the law” is attracted in this case. Inconvenience or unpleasant consequences of violation of law cannot detract from the prescription of the law,” the court held.

The court therefore set aside the high court’s order and restored the findings of the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.