Back
: Certificate Alone Cannot Prove for SSB Officer
The delivered a significant ruling on Monday, quashing the dismissal of a officer and clarifying that an marriage certificate, by itself, is insufficient to establish a without the performance of .
A ? Court Examines Certificate
Justice Rajeev Singh of the was hearing a petition filed by Rohit Pandey, a Deputy Commandant in the SSB, challenging his removal from service on . The department had acted on a complaint from one Sucheta Tiwari, who claimed that she had married Pandey at an Mandir in . The authorities treated this alleged marriage as valid and concluded that Pandey had made a false declaration about his marital status when he entered service.
SSB Officer's Dismissal Quashed: The Crucial Distinction
The court noted that the entire controversy revolved around the complaint. Pandey argued that no valid marriage had ever taken place, pointing to Sucheta Tiwari's own admission during the trial of a related criminal case (Case No. 1548 of ) that the marriage was not performed as per Hindu rituals and . He relied on the 's decision in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971) to argue that under the , a marriage is valid only when are performed.
The respondents, however, relied on the departmental inquiry where Tiwari and the priest of the Mandir testified to the marriage, and notary certificates were produced. They contended that Pandey had given incorrect information in his attestation form by stating he was unmarried and that he had never been prosecuted, despite the ongoing criminal case.
Under the
Justice Rajeev Singh examined the law and the evidence. The court observed that the complainant herself had admitted during the criminal trial that the marriage was not solemnized according to Hindu rituals. Referring to the 's decision in Priya Bala Ghosh , the High Court held:
“Merely on the basis of placing any certificate of Mandir, it cannot be said that marriage was solemnised as per .”
The court further relied on Shanti Deb Berma v. Kanchan Prava Devi (1991 Supp (2) SCC 616) to emphasize that evidence of marriage must be cogent and cannot be proved merely by letters or oral statements. The High Court concluded that the alleged marriage “cannot be held to be a ,” and therefore could not be a ground for holding Pandey unsuitable for service.
Final Verdict: Reinstatement with ' '
The court quashed and set aside the impugned removal order and directed the respondents to allow Pandey to resume his duties forthwith. However, the period from the date of dismissal ( ) until the date of the judgment will be treated as “ ,” though it will not constitute a break in service. The ruling reinforces that mere production of an marriage certificate is insufficient to prove a , and that the prescribed under the must be established.
