Back
Upholds of CRPF Constable for Under Section 11
In a significant ruling on discipline within paramilitary forces, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has upheld the of a constable who contracted a second marriage without departmental permission. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed the writ petition filed by Prabhu Singh, a constable (Jal Vahak) removed from service in under .
A Second Marriage Without Permission: The Case of Prabhu Singh
The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the CRPF in . He had married Smt. Urmila Devi in under Hindu rites and had children from that marriage. In , after his recruitment, she left the matrimonial home with the children and could not be traced. Subsequently, in , the petitioner married Smt. Pratima Devi without seeking any permission from the department, and had her name entered as his nominee in service records, while omitting any mention of his first wife.
In , disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. During the inquiry, the petitioner admitted both marriages and conceded that he had neither obtained departmental permission nor informed the authorities. The inquiry officer found the charge of —prohibited under and —proved. The disciplinary authority removed him from service, and subsequent appeal and revision were rejected.
Arguments Over
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the second marriage had been intimated by nominating the second wife, and that the department had taken no action for years. More importantly, it was contended that even if the charge was proved, only the listed in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1)—such as reduction in rank or fine—could be imposed, and removal was disproportionate and excessive.
The respondents countered that a second marriage during subsistence of a prior marriage disqualifies a member from remaining in a disciplined force like the CRPF, which demands strict moral character. They argued that Section 11 itself provides for or suspension as punishment, with the listed being in addition to or in lieu of such major penalties.
Court's Analysis: Permissible Under '' Section
The court examined Section 11 of the CRPF Act, noting that the section is headed "
" but its sub-section (1) explicitly states that the punishments in clauses (a) to (e) may be awarded
"in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or
."
Relying on the
's decision in
Union of India and others vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat
() 13 SCC 228, the court held that the provision empowers authorities to award , and the listed punishments are additional options, not the only permissible ones.
The court also referred to Union of India and Others vs Rama Shankar ( SCC OnLine Gau 943), where the observed that on a proven charge of against a member of a disciplined force cannot be called disproportionate, as it could have an adverse effect on the overall image and morale of the force.
Key Observations
Justice Gupta made several critical observations. On the issue of , the court stated:
"Had this fact been disclosed by the petitioner that she is the second wife after his nomination in service record, disciplinary action would have been taken against him at that stage itself. Non-disclosure of the aforesaid facts to the department, is an act of deliberate
on the part of the petitioner."
Addressing the argument, the court noted:
"it is a settled principle of law that the
of the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority can be looked into by the courts only when it shocks the conscience of the court and which is
, or when it is impermissible under the Rules."
The court concluded that the second marriage violated both Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules and Rule 21 of the CCS Conduct Rules, and constituted punishable under Section 11. The punishment of was neither excessive nor impermissible.
Final Verdict
Finding no grounds to interfere, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the removal order, the appellate decision, and the revisional order. The judgment reinforces that by members of disciplined forces is a serious warranting , even under the "" provision of the CRPF Act.
