IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions in uniformed services must uphold strict standards of conduct, and proven misconduct justifies severe penalties such as dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the Learned Judge in W.P.No. 28792 of 2010 dated 09.08.2019.

The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appellant was holding the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force Unit. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Rule 21(2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct Rules) 1964 and under Section 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001.

2. The charge against the appellant was that having a spouse living by name Smt.Mobin Taj got 2nd marriage with another lady named Mrs.H.Reshma without obtaining divorce with his first wife, which is a misconduct. The article of charge -II indicates that gross indiscipline and misconduct on the part of the appellant that applied for LTC for the block year 2008-2009 for self and for his wife namely Mobin Taj on 21.08.2009, when he is living with 2nd wife Mrs.H.Reshma. The part on the Official to suppress the fact from the department is also an offence. Thus, the 2nd charge was framed. The charge memo contains statement of imputation of gross indiscipline or misconduct in support of the articles of charges. List of documents are provided and the list of witnesses are also furnished. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the charge memorandum issued to the appellant by the respondents.

3. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who inturn conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to all the parties. The appellant participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case by availing the opportunities provided. The Enquiry Officer submitted his final Report holding that the charges are held proved. The proved charges are accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The copy of the Enquiry Report was communicated to the delinquent staff. He had submitted his further explanations on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the final order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings was issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of dismissal from service in proceedings dated 02.09.2010. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected. Thereafter, the writ petition came to be instituted. The writ court considered all the factual matrix and found that the appellant had not established any case for interference. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed and consequently, the present writ appeal came to be instituted.

4. Mrs.R.Meenakshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the 1st wife of the appellant deserted him and she is not living with the appellant for long time. Therefore, the appellant has contracted for 2nd marriage. The appellant had no intention to have two wifes and in view of the desertion by first wife, he has chosen to marry Mrs.H.Reshma. Thus, the mitigating circumstances resulted in contracting 2nd marriage ought to have been considered by the competent Authorities and the writ court. It is further contended that the Authorities have not even considered for grant of compassionate allowance in the case of appellant. In the event of dismissal from service, the competent Authorities ought to have considered grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules. For all these reasons the writ appeal is to be considered.

5. Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that proved misconducts are grave in nature. During the life time of the first wife, the appellant has contracted for 2nd marriage and married Mrs.H.Reshma as his second wife. Therefore, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The appellant defended his case and the Enquiry Officer found that