The violation of CRPF Rules, the proportionality of punishment, and the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 were central to the court's decision.

N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 01.06.2015 made in SWP No. 1490/2007 wherein the appellant has prayed to quash the order dated 28.09.2007, compulsorily retiring him from service and for direction to take him back in service with effect from 28.09.2007 with all monetary benefits. The learned Single Judge having noticed the contract of marriage of the appellant for the second timer while the first wife is alive without getting permission from the department, up held the order of compulsory retirement against which this appeal is filed. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:--

(a) The appellant was enrolled as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 1996. The appellant married one Naseema Begum in the year 1992 and three children are born out of the wedlock. During the subsistence of the first marriage, on 20.05.2006 the appellant married one Ms. Razia and brought her as his second wife to his house. The first wife addressed a complaint before the 5th respondent in 2006 stating that the appellant has contracted the second marriage and was threatening her to leave his house along with the children on the ground that she is a burden. On receipt of the representation/complaint the 5th respondent sought for a report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara who in turn entrusted the matter to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Headquarters. The said officer conducted a brief enquiry into the matter, recorded the statement of the first wife/complainant and submitted the report to the SSP, who by report dated 07.02.2007 confirmed that Ms. Naseema Begum is the first wife, however, she has stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter and she is not interested in pursuing the complaint.

(b) The appellant having contracted the second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage, the respondents decided to proceed against him as he has violated Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 which prohibits second marriage 4 without permission from the Government. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.02.2007 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why disciplinary action in terms of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 should not be taken against him. The appellant submitted his explanation and took the stand that the second marriage was necessitated by continued ill health of his first wife and to take care of the three children born out of the wedlock. He has also pleaded that the complaint having decided not to pursue the matter, the matter should be dropped. He has also claimed that even though second marriage is permissible under Personal Law, he having not obtained prior permission as per Rules to contract second marriage, he divorced the second wife. The explanation was considered and the same having not been found satisfactory, departmental enquiry was ordered.

(c) The departmental enquiry was conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. On 12.07.2007 the appellant was directed to adduce his evidence if any. On 28.08.2007 the appellant filed a defence statement along with an affidavit sworn by his second wife stating that she was divorced by the appellant and had been paid Rs. 20,000/- on account of dower and the appellant has resumed the marital relation with his first wife.

(d) The enquiry office, noticing the admission made by the appellant that without getting prior permission he contracted the second marriage, held that the charges leveled against the appellant were proved. Based on the enquiry report the 5th respondent imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 28.09.2007 by specifically stating that appellant is entitled to full gratuity and pension in terms of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

2. The said order was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, by stating that the enquiry officer failed to follow the procedures as man