SC restores dismissal of CISF personnel for marrying during subsistence of first wedlock

New Delhi, Dec 19 The Supreme Court on Friday restored the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on a man, who was employed with Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), consequent to disciplinary proceedings for marrying once more in the subsistence of his first wedlock.

A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi said that inconvenience or unpleasant consequences of violation of law cannot detract from the prescription of the law.

The apex court set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court which had directed the disciplinary authority to pass orders imposing a lesser penalty on him.

The bench delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the Centre and others challenging the high court's order.

The top court noted that the man began serving as a member of the CISF as a constable in July 2006 and his wife, in a written complaint and subsequently upon examination, had informed the authorities that he had married for a second time in March 2016.

It further noted that an enquiry officer was deputed to look into the case and later, the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities dismissed him from service for having entered into a second marriage while still having a living spouse.

The matter then went to the high court and its single judge was of the view that as opposed to dismissal from service, his removal from service would be more appropriate and as such, remanded the matter to the authority concerned.

The authorities then approached the division bench, which remanded the matter to the concerned authority for imposition of appropriate punishment.

Dealing with the appeal, the top court referred to the relevant rules, including those which provides for recruitment to the force and conditions which will lead to the disqualification of a recruit.

"It is important to observe that such rules are premised on an institutional requirement for all members of the force(s) to maintain the highest standards of discipline, public confidence and integrity," the bench said.

It noted that these rules are not a "moral censure", but simply a service condition which an employer is perfectly within their rights to prescribe so long as such conditions are not arbitrary, disproportionate or violative of constitutional protections.

The bench said none of the parties in the matter are alleging that the enquiry and subsequent proceedings till the high court have transgressed the law or its duly laid down procedure.

"It has long been held that under Article 226 jurisdiction, the court is not akin to an appellate court, its powers are limited to the extent of judicial review. They cannot set aside punishment or impose a different punishment unless they find that there is substantial non-compliance of the rules," it said.

The bench said in this case, it cannot be said that there is any ambiguity and the words of the clause are clear.

"There is no averment as to the proper procedure not been followed in the disciplinary proceedings. The maxim 'dura lex sed lex' which means 'the law is hard, but it is the law' is attracted in this case," it said.

While setting aside the high court order, the bench restored the findings of the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.

It noted that the man was dismissed from service in terms of order dated July 1, 2017 passed by the senior commandant, CISF, consequent to disciplinary proceedings

drawn against him for marrying once more in the subsistence of his first marriage.

Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824294