Dismissal for second marriage is ‘too severe’: Why Tripura High Court protected rifleman’s pension after 20 years of service

The division bench noted that if second marriage is permissible under an employee’s personal law, they must still demonstrate to govt that the marriage is legally allowed. 

The order added that the misconduct of the writ petitioner is serious, mandating his discontinuation in service, but it is not so serious as to warrant forfeiture of all service benefits.

The case of second marriage

• The case arose after the respondent, a rifleman (GD) in TSR, contracted a second marriage in 2016 while his first wife was still alive.
• In 2019, his second wife lodged a complaint alleging that he had contracted marriage with her, but he was not taking care of her.
• Based on said complaint, the disciplinary authority initiated departmental proceeding against him as per Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 40 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions, etc.), Rules 1986 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 12(1) of Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983.
• The disciplinary authority initially proposed removal from service, which was later reduced to compulsory retirement in October 2021.
• Although a single judge had earlier set aside these orders in May 2025 and remanded the matter for reconsideration, the State of Tripura appealed that decision to the division bench.
• Appearing for the respondent, advocate Rajasree Purkayastha, submitted that the quantum of punishment awarded to the writ petitioner was harsh in nature and urged before this court for taking lenient view while doing so, as he is the sole bread earner in his family and he has three minor daughters and it would be difficult for him to maintain his family if he is not reinstated in service.

State’s stand

• Appearing for the state, additional government advocate Karnajit De submitted that with respect to contracting a second marriage, a government employee is governed by Rule 21 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988, which applies to the TSR personnel also.
• He stated that the said Rule prohibits government employees from entering into a new marriage if a spouse is already living.
• And in case of exceptions, government permission is required, granted only if permissible under personal law and for valid grounds.
• He further submitted that the petitioner, who has a spouse living, has not approached the government or his authority before contracting another marriage, which violated Rule 21 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

Court’s findings

• The final order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order of the revisional authority stated that he was given ample opportunities to be heard during the hearing of the DP.
• He was also given the facilities to inspect the documents in the DP file and to keep notes of the same.
• The respondent did not give any requisition for additional documents or defense witnesses despite the opportunities given to him.
• He was also asked to nominate a defence assistant, but he declined to nominate a defence assistant despite several opportunities given to him during the enquiry.
• He neither informed nor obtained any permission from his department before contracting a second marriage, which violates Rule 21 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.
• He is a TSR personnel who has served his department for about 20 years, and the allegation against him is that he violated Rule 21 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988, by contracting a second marriage while his first spouse was living.
• This court is in complete agreement with the observations made in the judgment passed by the division bench of this court in Ghulam Nabi Shergujri to the fact that this is not a criminal offence of bigamy because the personal law of the respondent permits such conduct.