The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proportionality in imposing disciplinary penalties, considering the changing ethical standards and societal behavior, and the impact of personal circumstances on the individual's conduct.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The petition impugns the order dated 10th December, 2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.213/2020 preferred by the respondent no.1.

2. The counsel for the respondent no.1, along with respondent no.1 in person, appears on advance notice and considering the nature of the challenge, we have, with consent, proceeded to hear the counsels finally at this stage itself.

3. The respondent no.1 is an Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer, of 2009 batch, of Rajasthan Cadre. Before being selected into IPS, he worked as an Auditor in the Ministry of Commerce. A memo dated 25 th April, 2016, under Rule 8 (Procedure for imposing major penalties) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, was served on the respondent no.1, charging the respondent no.1 with, after his marriage on 4 th December, 2005 with one Ms. Sudha Gupta, having started living with another woman and also having a son with the said other woman.

4. The stand of the respondent no.1, in response to the aforesaid memo, was, that (i) though he was married to Ms. Sudha Gupta in 2005 but the said Ms. Sudha Gupta refused to live with the respondent no.1 and in fact intended to contract another marriage; (ii) the respondent, in the year 2009 applied for divorce from the said Ms. Sudha Gupta; (iii) however the aforesaid divorce petition was dismissed on 21st December, 2013; and, (iv) the respondent no.1 preferred an appeal (to the High Court) against the order of dismissal of the divorce petition and which appeal was pending consideration at the time of service of the memo.

5. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners, being not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation, on 25th January, 2017 appointed an Inquiry Officer, who submitted a report dated 14th July, 2017, of the charge having been proved against the respondent No.1.

6. It is not in dispute, that the High Court before which the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 against the order of dismissal of his divorce petition was pending, vide order dated 1st May, 2018 granted a decree of divorce between the respondent no.1 and the said Ms. Sudha Gupta.

7. However the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners, in consultation with the respondent no.3 Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), on 19th February, 2019 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent no.1.

8. Aggrieved therefrom, the OA from which this petition arises, was preferred by the respondent no.1.

9. Cat, in the impugned order has found/reasoned, that (i) the only charge against the respondent no.1 was, (a) of, after selection in IPS in May, 2009, having maintained distance from his wife Ms. Sudha Gupta, with whom the respondent no.1 also had a daughter, born in the year 2008, and of having applied for divorce from Ms. Sudha Gupta on 6th October, 2009 and which petition for divorce stood dismissed on 21st December, 2013; (b) of, even prior to the decision dated 21st December, 2013 in the divorce petition, having established relationship with one Ms. Mukulika and also having a son, born on 14th May, 2011, with the said Ms. Mukulika; and, (c) of, despite being married and before taking divorce from his first wife Ms. Sudha Gupta, having established relationship as a wife with another woman and having also begotten a son with another woman, all in violation of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, amounting to serious misconduct; (ii) by the time the charge memo was served on the respondent no.1, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 against the dismissal of his divorce petition was already pending; (iii) though CAT does not act as an appellate authority on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer but can certainly verify whether any serious lapse had taken place in the process of conducting inquiry; (iv) the respondent no.1 had raised repeated objections to the very appointment of the Inquiry Officer who was himself facing