Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Disciplinary Proceedings — Misconduct — Bigamy — Proportionality of Punishment — Judicial Review under Article 226.
Dismissal for Second Marriage: The Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed for contracting a second marriage while his first spouse was living. Such an act violates Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The Court held that service rules regarding marriage are not mere moral censures but essential service conditions designed to maintain institutional discipline and operational efficacy. (Paras 2–7).
Scope of Judicial Review — Article 226: High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, do not act as appellate authorities. They cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority unless the process is vitiated by procedural impropriety, violation of natural justice, or if the punishment "shocks the conscience" of the Court. (Paras 8–9).
Proportionality and Discipline in CAPFs: In a disciplined force like the CISF, maintaining high standards of integrity is paramount. The High Court erred in treating dismissal as "too harsh" for bigamy, as the statutory rule (Rule 18) expressly provides for disqualification on such grounds. The principle of dura lex sed lex (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies. (Para 9).
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
I. Factual Background
The Respondent joined the CISF as a Constable in 2006. His first wife filed a complaint alleging that while posted in Odisha, the Respondent married another woman on March 14, 2016. A departmental inquiry was initiated, leading to the following:
Charges: Violation of Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules, 2001 (contracting marriage while a spouse is living) and neglect of his first wife and daughter.
Disciplinary Action: The Disciplinary Authority ordered his dismissal from service, which was later upheld by Appellate and Revisional authorities.
High Court Intervention: The High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) held that dismissal was "disproportionate" and "too harsh," directing the authorities to impose a lesser penalty to avoid financial hardship for the family.
II. Legal Framework: CISF Rules, 2001
The Supreme Court scrutinized Rule 18, which stipulates:
(b) [No person] who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person, shall be eligible for appointment to the Force.
The Court noted that these rules ensure that members of the force are free from domestic discord or divided responsibilities that could impact mental stability and operational efficacy.
III. The Limits of Judicial Review
The crux of the Supreme Court’s reversal lies in the definition of the High Court's power under Article 226. The Court emphasized that judicial review is a review of the decision-making process, not the decision itself.
The Court categorized the limitations as follows:
What the Court CAN check: Competence of the officer, compliance with natural justice, and whether the finding is based on "some" evidence.
What the Court CANNOT do: Re-appreciate evidence, correct errors of fact, or interfere with the choice of penalty unless it is "shockingly disproportionate."
IV. Legal Principles Applied
Strict Construction of Penal Rules: Any rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed. Since Rule 18(b) was clear and the facts (the second marriage) were proven, the penalty followed the law.
Dura Lex Sed Lex: The Court held that even if the law results in "unpleasant consequences" (loss of livelihood), the Court cannot ignore the statutory prescription.
Institutional Integrity: For a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), acts prejudicial to "good order and discipline" are grave. The High Court's sympathy toward the respondent's financial situation did not override the institutional requirement for discipline.
FINAL DECISION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Union of India, set aside the High Court's orders, and restored the dismissal of the Respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment