The judgment establishes that the penalty of removal from service for violating the Conduct Rules may be upheld if not shockingly disproportionate, and emphasizes the higher standard of conduct expected from members of disciplined forces.

Heard Mr. F.Z. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing all the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5504/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/ writ petitioner was a Constable in the Assam Police. However, during the currency of his first marriage, he contracted a second marriage. The first wife of the appellant/ writ petitioner has filed a complaint with the authorities concerned and on the basis of the said complaint, Disciplinary Proceedings have been initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner and in those Disciplinary Proceedings, the charge relating to the second marriage during the currency of the first marriage was proved against the appellant/writ petitioner and pursuant to that, the Superintendent of Police, Dima Hasao, Haflong has inflicted a punishment of his removal from service, which resulted into passing of the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 removing the appellant/writ petitioner from service. The Departmental Appeal preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed. The said order dated 26.04.2023 was challenged by way of a writ petition.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner vide the impugned order while holding that there is no illegality in the order of removal from service of the appellant/writ petitioner and the same is not vitiated.

4. Mr. F.Z. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that though the charge against the appellant/writ petitioner of contracting second marriage during the currency of the first marriage was proved but the Disciplinary Authority has erred in inflicting the penalty of removal from service of the appellant/writ petitioner and the said punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charge on the established judicial parameters.

Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 28.10.2023, issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Personnel, anenxed as Annexure-A along with the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the said Office Memorandum provides that the Disciplinary Authority may initiate Departmental Proceedings for imposition of penalty, including compulsory retirement, against a Government servant found to have violated Rule 26 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. It is argued that the Office Memorandum dated 28.10.2023 provides that only the penalty of compulsory retirement can be inflicted against the Government servant, who has contracted another marriage during the currency of the first marriage without first obtaining prior permission from the Government. It is also argued that a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment & order dated 18.01.2023, passed in Writ Appeal No.357/2022 (The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Pranab Kumar Nath) has held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is in violation of the Rules, yet, it cannot be said that it is one of the most heinous form of misconducts for which an incumbent must be necessarily visited with the punishment of dismissal.

It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the charge against the appellant/writ petitioner of contracting second marriage during the currency of the first marriage is proved, but the Disciplinary Authority has erred in inflicting the punishment of removal from service upon the appellant/writ petitioner and the said punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charge.

It is, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the S