[Assam Rifles Rules] Meghalaya High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Rifleman For Engaging In Polygamy

The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the discharge of a Rifleman employed with Assam Rifles who contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage.

Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 bars the Rifleman to contract another marriage during the lifetime of the first marriage and makes such Rifleman ineligible for retention in the service.

It was contended by the Appellant/Rifleman that he didn't contract a second marriage but was only living in a live-in relationship. Therefore, no violation of the Rule was committed by the Appellant.

Rejecting such contention, the bench comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that “the submission made by the appellant cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that it was proved on record that the appellant had been living with the so-called second wife for a long period and cohabited with her under the same roof, which is sufficient to establish that there was a marriage.”

“Thus, the second marriage of the appellant has been duly established in this case and if the contention of the appellant that he had maintained only live-in relationship with the second wife, is accepted, it will give a wrong signal to others that without solemnizing marriage, any male person can live with another lady and this will defeat the purpose of marriage and in that event, the sacrament of marriage itself would be lost.”, the Judgment authored by Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan observed.

The Court found that Rule 10(2) clearly that a person who contracts into a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse need not be retained in service and may be dismissed, removed, or retired from service.

The Court drew reference from the case of MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 where the Supreme Court held that it is mandatory on the part of the personnel in a disciplined force to maintain discipline of the highest order.

Thus, the Court concluded that the Appellant herein, having acted in contravention to the established Rules (supra), cannot seek reinstatement, questioning his discharge.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv

For the Respondents : Mr. R. Debnath, CGC

Case Title: Ganga Sagar Ram Versus The Union of India & Ors., WA No. 41 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Megh) 25

Click here to read/download the judgment