Bigamy Violation Of CISF Rules But Not Heinous Enough To Warrant Dismissal From Service: Gauhati High Court

While dismissing the appeal filed by Union of India, the division bench of the Chief Justice (Acting) N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Soumitra Saikia observed:

“In our opinion though this act of conducting of second marriage can be said to be an act of indiscipline, inasmuch as, contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage was in violation of rules, yet, it cannot be said that it is one of most heinous form of misconducts for which he must be necessarily visited with the punishment of dismissal.”

The constable in CISF was dismissed from service by the authorities on the ground of bigamy in 2017.

The Case

After a written complaint was filed by his wife, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for marrying another woman, during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. On conclusion of the inquiry, he was found guilty under Rule 18 (B) of the CISF Rules, 2001, and accordingly, dismissed him from service vide order dated 01.07.2017. His appeal and revision against the impugned order was rejected by the appellate as well as revisional authority.

He then filed a writ before the High Court challenging the dismissal order on the ground that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct proven and sought for imposing a lesser punishment.

The Single Judge vide order dated 21.07.2022 set aside the order of dismissal dated 01.07.2017 and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing any other penalty on him other than the penalty of dismissal.

Division Bench Ruling

The division bench said dismissal is the most extreme form of punishment which can be imposed upon a Government employee and has the effect of cutting off the source of income and depriving him and his dependents of the means of sustenance.

"Apart from it, he will be not eligible for reemployment in a public sector. Thus, the civil consequences it entails are of extreme nature which in our opinion, should not be ordinarily invoked unless the misconduct is of such nature that there is no other option but to impose such a punishment,” said the court

It further said that imposing the punishment of dismissal on the constable would cause serious economic hardships not only to him but also to his first wife and his daughter and also to the other woman.

The court also observed that the punishment of dismissal imposed will deprive the family members of financial support and may drive them to penury.

“Keeping in mind the misconduct proved, if a lesser penalty could have been also imposed for the same misconduct, the authorities must examine the impact which will have not only to the employee concerned, but also to all of his family members who are entirely dependent on him, before taking the severest and ultimate form of punishment under the rules,” it added.

Accordingly, the court upheld the order of the single judge and directed Disciplinary authority to pass any other lesser penalty on the petitioner other than the penalty of dismissal.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Pranab Kumar Nath

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 24

Coram: The Chief Justice (Acting) N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Soumitra Saikia

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment