The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proportionality in the punishment imposed for violations of service rules, considering the individual circumstances and the impact on the petitioner's family.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to quash the order dated 08.06.2019, passed by the Commandant No. 106 Bn. RAF, CRPF, Jamshedpur as well as order dated 03.10.2019, passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF (RAF), Dehradun, Uttarkhand.

Further, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated NIL of month January, 2020, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rapid Action Force, CRPF (RAF), New Delhi.

Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the aforesaid orders, a direction be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. While the petitioner was working as Constable under the CRPF, show-cause notice was issued to him for the offence that he has solemnized 2nd marriage with one Reshma Devi during the lifetime of his 1st wife namely, Usha Devi. The petitioner submitted his reply stating therein that he was unaware of the provisions of Rule-11(1) of the CRPF and when he entered into an agreement of divorce from his 1st wife on 05.01.2016 he thought that now he is free to contract 2nd marriage and hence, he solemnized the marriage with his 2nd wife namely Reshma Devi. However, being not satisfied with grounds raised by the petitioner in his show-cause reply, the respondents have initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner by appointing Enquiry Officer. In the departmental proceeding both oral as well as documentary evidences were produced and the petitioner was given opportunity to present his case and cross-examine the respondent’s witness which he has availed accordingly. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by exercising the power of Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule-27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 passed the order of punishment removing the petitioner from the services on the ground that petitioner has concealed the material fact that he has solemnized 2nd marriage during the lifetime of his 1st wife which is not permissible under the Hindu Marriage Act and amounts to gross misconduct. Being dissatisfied with the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal but the same stood dismissed and the order of punishment has been affirmed. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act against his 1st wife vide judgment dated 29.11.2018, passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 51 of 2018, which fact has not been considered by the respondents while removing the petitioner from service.

Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

3. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned orders on the ground that the respondents have not considered the material facts that petitioner has already obtained consent from his 1st wife by way of an agreement and thereafter, solemnized 2nd marriage and as such, he has not committed any offence as envisaged under CRPF Act and CRPF Rules. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has rendered more than 14 years of unblemished service career and only on the basis of complaint lodged by her 1st wife that the petitioner has solemnized 2nd marriage, the respondents have inflicted major punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel submits that the appellate authority has also not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and mechanically dismissed the same by affirming the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside and petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

4. Per Contra, the Respondent have filed Counter Affidavit. Mr. Madan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents