Important Point:
Petitioner Categorized At Scheduled Tribe Thus Exempted From The Application Of Hindu Marriage Act.

A.Y. Kogje, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers:-

“16. a. That your honour be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

b. That your honour be pleased to quash and set aside the said impugned order dated 31/5/2013 passed by the Resp no.2 herein by Dismissing the petitioner from Service; and the subsequent Appeal order passed by Resp no.3 herein & dated 20/7/13; as also the Revision order dated 22/11/2013 passed by the Resp no.4 herein for the reasons as contended by the petitioner in the present petition memo hereinabove.

c. That your honour be pleased to so allow the present petition by directing the respondent authorities to allow the voluntary retirement of the petitioner”

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner came to be recruited with the respondent Central Reserve Police Force on 3.4.1991 and served in the force till 31.5.2013.

2.1 It appears that the petitioner came to be dismissed from service on 31.5.2013 considering him to have committed misconduct of plural marriage barred under Rule 15 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.

2.2 It appears that after having put in 20 years of service, when the petitioner was eligible for voluntary retirement had applied for voluntary retirement and during verification of his pension papers, the department realized that the petitioner was earlier married to one Bhuriben in the year 1990 and, thereafter, in the year 1999 he had married to one Ranjanben.

2.3 Based on this fact coming to light, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and after the departmental inquiry was dismissed from service and consequentially his application for voluntary retirement also came to be rejected.

2.4 As provided under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (For short, “CRPF Act”) the petitioner first preferred an appeal under Section 28 of the Act which came to be rejected by an order dated 20.7.2013 and, against the order in appeal, the petitioner also preferred a revision application under Section 29 of the CRPF Act, the revision application also came to be rejected vide order dated 22.11.2013. It is against this decision of the department that the petitioner has filed present petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. G. Ramakrishnan for the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner belongs to an Adivasi community (Asari), which is popularly known as Dungri Garasiya. He referred to the Caste Certificate which is at Annexure-D to substantiate his claim that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe.

3.1 He contends that as the petitioner though was married to Bhuriben in the year 1990 on account of certain domestic differences, by mutual consent, adopted the customary divorce by calling the Panchayat of that tribal community on 29.6.1997 and that their marriage was declared to have ended by such customary divorce.

3.2 He contends that as his marriage with Ranjanben took place in the year 1999 i.e. after his customary divorce from Bhuriben, the first marriage was no more in existence and subsisting.

3.3 He also contends that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will also not be attracted as the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Tribe, which is defined in Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the customary divorce within his community is a recognized mode of divorce to bring an end to an existing marriage.

3.4 He contends that therefore, Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules would not be attracted to the facts of his case and the marriage with Ranjanben in the year 1999 cannot be termed to be second marriage contracted while the first marriage was in force or his wife was living. He submits that considering the long and meritorious service the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for voluntary retirement, more particularly, when the alleged act of misconduct is not even remotely connected to the discharge of his service.

4. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent