'Unbecoming' Of Police Personnel To Be In Live-In Relationship Despite Being Married: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Constable's Dismissal

Bhavya Singh

15 July 2024 6:00 AM GMT

  • Unbecoming Of Police Personnel To Be In Live-In Relationship Despite Being Married: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Constables Dismissal

    The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a police constable who, despite being married, was involved in a live-in relationship with another woman. The Court stated that such behaviour is inappropriate for a police officer and violates the rules governing his service conditions.Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, ruled, "It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was...

    The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a police constable who, despite being married, was involved in a live-in relationship with another woman. The Court stated that such behaviour is inappropriate for a police officer and violates the rules governing his service conditions.

    Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, ruled, "It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed."

    "Though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, but it cannot be a ground for quashment of the order of dismissal, which was done in regular departmental proceeding. The parameters of the criminal case are different from the regular departmental proceeding," he added.

    While serving as a Constable at Churchu Police Station in Hazaribagh district, the petitioner faced allegations that despite being married with two children, he engaged in a live-in relationship with another woman who later became pregnant. Subsequently, he allegedly subjected her to various forms of torture, leading to a Panchayat intervention and a police complaint. An FIR was filed under sections 341, 323, 376, 313, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

    Following an inquiry into the complaint and verification of facts involving the petitioner's first wife, he was suspended from service on June 4, 2018. A formal departmental proceeding commenced after the petitioner denied all charges and asserted his innocence in response to the charge memo. The inquiry confirmed the allegations, resulting in his dismissal from service. Aggreieved of unsuccessful appeals and revisions, the petitioner approached the High Court.

    Advocate Satish Prasad, representing the petitioner, argued that the challenged orders were legally untenable because the petitioner was penalized for an allegation not included in the charge memo.

    He contended that the charge sheet lacked a specific accusation of bigamy, rendering the orders based on such grounds invalid. Prasad further asserted that while the petitioner lived with the complainant in a domestic relationship, it did not constitute marriage, as the petitioner denied any such marital status. Citing the proviso to Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which pertains to the validation of a second marriage, Prasad urged for the orders to be quashed and dismissed. Additionally, he highlighted that the petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case filed by the complainant on the same allegations in February 2023.

    The Court noted that the constable admitted to having an extramarital relationship with a woman. It observed that the petitioner himself acknowledged being in a live-in relationship with a woman other than his wife.

    “The admission of the petitioner that he was in a live-in relationship with xxx, who was a lady other than his wife, becomes a sufficient reason for termination/dismissal in view of Rule 23 of the Service Code read with Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual,” the Court noted.

    Regarding the disciplinary action taken, the Court stated, "The punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority was tested up to the highest authority of the State which could not be questioned here sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when no folly in the departmental proceeding is pointed out."

    Accordingly, the Court declined to intervene in the penalty imposed on the constable. "As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned penalty order dated 14.03.2017 affirmed upto the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, which requires no interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed," the Court concluded.

    Case Title: XXX vs The State Of Jharkhand

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 113

    Click Here To Read Judgement

    Next Story