IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that while misconduct was established, the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive and disproportionate, warranting judicial intervention.

ORDER :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

Factual Background

1. The brief facts of the case, as averred in the Writ Affidavit are;

a. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in CISF department on 02.09.2006 and was posted at Red Fort, New Delhi.

b. A show cause notice dated 30.08.2016 is issued by the Respondent No.5 to the Petitioner framing two charges alleging that he contracted second marriage with one Ms.Prameela Pativada, who is a Mahila Constable in CISF during the subsistence of his first marriage with Ms. K. Nagalakshmi, which is against the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CISF Rules, 2001.

c. After the inquiry, Respondent No.5 passed order dated 11.01.2017 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd gratuity. Challenging the same, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.4/Appellate authority, which was rejected on 01.06.2017. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Respondent No.3, which was dismissed on 21.11.2017 confirming the orders passed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Ultimately, he was discharged from service by compulsory retirement on 13.01. 2017.

d. Impugning the same, the W.P. is filed seeking Certiorari for the following relief:

“ … calling for records pertaining to final order dated 11.01.2017, passed by the Respondent No.5 and the subsequent orders dated 01.06.2017 and 21.11.2017, passed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 3 respectively by confirming the punishment of compulsory retirement and quash the same after declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential and attendant benefits and continuity of services and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice .”

Version of the Respondents

2. Counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents contains the following averments, in brief;

a. Marriage of the Petitioner with Ms.Prameela Pativada, who is a lady constable, was not accepted by his family and they forced him to get married to Ms. K.Nagalakshmi, his relative.

b. No decree of divorce is filed by the Petitioner, according to Rule-21(2) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules, 2001.

c. After due enquiry the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd gratuity is awarded against the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the Respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Writ Affidavit, submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 02.09.2006 and that while he was discharging duties as such, the Respondent No.5-Commandandent CISF, issued a show cause notice framing two articles of charges vide Order dated 30.08.2016 alleging that he contracted second marriage with one Prameela Pativada, during the subsistence of his first marriage with Mrs.K.Nagalakshmi, which is against the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CISF Rules, 2001.

5. Learned counsel would submit that the Respondent No.5 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd gratuity vide order dated 11.01.2017, and both the appeal and revision were dismissed. It is also stated that Petitioner was discharged from service on compulsory retirement on 13.01.2017. It is also submitted that the Petitioner initially married Mahila Constable, Ms.Prameela Pativada, which was not considered by his family members. It is stated that due to pressure of his parents, he was forced to marry Ms. K.Nagalakshmi who is his relative. It is stated that after the marriage, disputes arose and Ms. K.Nagalakshmi lodged a criminal case against the Petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that due to the interference of the elders, Petitioner and Ms. K.Nagalakshmi entered a