Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Pranab Kumar Nath on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28806/2023
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 18-01-2023 in WA
No. 357/2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PRANAB KUMAR NATH Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.153576/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.153573/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.153574/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-08-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G.
Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv.
Mr. V V V Pattabhiram, Adv.
Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The respondent was a Constable in the CISF. On account of the disciplinary proceedings drawn against him for marrying a second time during the subsistence of the first marriage, the penalty of dismissal from service was ordered against him. However, the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2023.08.21 writ petition of the delinquent and ordered for substitution of the 16:28:33 IST Reason:
penalty of dismissal with lesser punishment.1
2. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASG cites Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 439 wherein this Court held as under:
“11. As already mentioned above, there is adequate material on record in support of the charge against the appellant that he performed the second marriage during the currency of the first marriage. Admittedly, there is no intimation in any form on record that the appellant had divorced his first wife. In service record she continued to be mentioned as the wife of the appellant. Moreover, she has given a statement in enquiry proceedings that she continued to be the wife of the appellant. The appellant also admitted in inquiry conducted on directions of the Human Rights Commission that his first marriage had continued. In these circumstances, the finding of violation of the Conduct Rules cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that the penalty of removal cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge on established judicial parameters.”
3. Issue notice on the Special Leave Petition as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable in four weeks.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2