Madras High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs The Commandant on 26 August, 2014
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.11900 of 2009 and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Sukhdev Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commandant,
Office of the Commandant 105,
BNRAF/CRPF,
Vellalore, Mahalingapuram,
Coimbatore 641 111.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
RAF/CRPF,
C-Wing, 4th Floor,
Kendriya Sadan, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai, Mumbai,
State of Maharashtra.
3.Director General of Police,
RAF/CRPF,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent's order dated 03.05.2007 made in No.251/06 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and all other attendant benefits, continuity of service.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunaseelan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Gopikrishnan
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the third respondent dated 03.05.2007 made in No.251/06 and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and all other attendant benefits, continuity of service.
2.The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he joined service in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Safai Karmachari at Coimbatore on 23.07.1992 and served in 77 battalion. Thereafter, he was transferred to 105 battalion on 22.11.2002 and served till the date of his removal from service on 31.10.2005. A charge memorandum has been issued against the petitioner on 21.02.2005 levelling as many as three charges viz., 1) When the first marriage of the petitioner with his wife is in existence, he married another lady; 2) Remained absent from duty for 56 days w.e.f 23.09.2004 to 17.11.2004 without prior permission or sanction of the competent authority and 3) He overstayed leave eight times in the past. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the above charges. According to him, his first wife namely Mrs.Paramjit Kaur had a love affair with another person and she married the said person and she refused to approach the Court of law and to get divorce from the petitioner. Thereafter only, the petitioner married another woman by name Gulzar Singh. In respect of the second and third charges, the petitioner has submitted that he applied leave properly and after getting prior permission only, he availed the said leave. The said leave was taken to take care of his daughter who was sick and since his father had passed away during the said period and also to perform ceremony. Hence, according to the petitioner, without properly considering the said reply of the petitioner, he has been removed from service by the respondents arbitrarily.
4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first wife of the petitioner married one Ram Singh and thereafter only the petitioner married Gulzar Singh. The petitioner has also reported the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amristar vide his letter No.387-M dated 27.11.2004 in reply to CRPF Memo No.P.VIII-1/2004-EC-II/05 dated 10.07.2004. Hence, according to the learned counsel, since, the petitioner has not committed any offence and there is no need for him to get permission from the Government. For the charges 2 and 3 the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has clearly explained that due to family circumstances and to take care of his daughter who was sick and because of his father died during the said period, he has availed leave. Hence, the said leave cannot be treated as overstayed.
5.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is extreme harsh and hence, the Court should interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
6.The Government has filed a detailed counter and submitted that the petitioner married one Gulzar Singh when his first marriage with Parmjit Kaur is in existence. In the counter, it has been stated that the petitioner overstayed leave on eight occasions from March 1997 to July 2003, the details of which are available on records. Further, he has overstayed leave for ninth time for 56 days during the period 23.09.2004 to 17.11.2004 without prior permission or sanction. In paragraph Nos.11,12 & 13 of the counter, it has been stated as follows:-
11.As per the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Section 5(I) condition for a Hindu Marriage are as follows:-
(a)Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Rule 15 of CRPF Act 1955 state as follows.
12.No Member of the Force who has a wife living shall contract any other marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government not withstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to the member of the Force.
13.Rule 13(I) (III) read with Rule 21(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964 state as follows:-
Rules 3 General Every Government Servant at all time I) Maintain absolute integrity.
II)Do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant Rule 21(2) No Government servant having a spouse living shall enter into or contract a marriage with any person.
Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to enter into or contract any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) & clause (2) if it is stipulated that
a)such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such government servant and the other party to the marriage and
b) there are other grounds for so doing.
7.According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner who is as a Government servant, has violated the said Rules. When the first marriage is in existence, the petitioner has re-married another woman which is called 'bigamy' and it is a punishable offence. As per the law, the second marriage is valid only on the grant of decree of divorce of the first marriage by the Court of law. Further, before getting second marriage, the petitioner has to get permission from the Government. According to the learned counsel, the said offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature.
8.Even assuming that I am going to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the re-marriage of the petitioner was performed only after his first wife got married to another man, I am unable to accept the explanation in respect of second and third charges that he is found unauthorisedly absent for several days on several times that too without getting prior permission or sanction from the authority.
9.In view of the above narrated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the irregularity said to have committed by the petitioner by marrying another woman while the first marriage was subsisting, cannot be viewed leniently since the same would amount to a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code and as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it is in violation of CRPF Rules and therefore, I do not find any scope to interfere with the major punishment by showing leniency towards the petitioner. Even after this, if the case of the petitioner is considered, it would become as a bad precedent and hence, the same cannot be entertained.
10.In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.08.2014 jbm Index : Yes/No To
1.The Commandant, Office of the Commandant 105, BNRAF/CRPF, Vellalore, Mahalingapuram, Coimbatore 641 111.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police, RAF/CRPF, C-Wing, 4th Floor, Kendriya Sadan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra.
3.Director General of Police, RAF/CRPF, New Delhi.
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J jbm W.P.No.11900 of 2009 26.08.2014