Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — CISF — Bigamous Marriage — Violation of Rule 21 CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 & Rule 18(b) CISF Rules, 2001 — Punishment of compulsory retirement — Doctrine of proportionality — Scope of judicial review — Whether Single Judge justified in remanding with direction to impose lesser penalty — Held, No — Punishment not shocking to conscience — Disciplinary authority’s discretion paramount — Writ Appeal allowed — Orders of compulsory retirement restored.

advocatemmmohan

Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — CISF — Bigamous Marriage — Violation of Rule 21 CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 & Rule 18(b) CISF Rules, 2001 — Punishment of compulsory retirement — Doctrine of proportionality — Scope of judicial review — Whether Single Judge justified in remanding with direction to impose lesser penalty — Held, No — Punishment not shocking to conscience — Disciplinary authority’s discretion paramount — Writ Appeal allowed — Orders of compulsory retirement restored.

---

A. Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters — Scope — Paras 12 & 13

Judicial review is not an appeal on merits. Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view on quantum of punishment. Interference permissible only when findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or punishment shocks the conscience.

(Ref: B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372)

---

B. Bigamous Marriage by Member of Disciplined Force — Serious Misconduct — Paras 16, 17, 20

Contracting second marriage during subsistence of first marriage, without decree of divorce, constitutes grave misconduct under Rule 21 CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) CISF Rules, 2001. Such conduct is indiscipline in a paramilitary force and cannot be treated lightly.

---

C. Proportionality of Punishment — Compulsory Retirement vs Dismissal — Paras 15, 20, 21

Where disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities concurrently held that compulsory retirement with 2/3rd gratuity was proportionate to gravity of charge, Court cannot interfere unless punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Compulsory retirement is lesser than dismissal/removal and cannot be termed excessive in facts of conscious bigamous marriage.

---

D. Remand with “Cap” on Punishment — Impermissibility — Paras 18 & 21

While remanding a matter, Court should not direct imposition of any particular lesser punishment or fix a cap. Quantum of punishment lies within exclusive domain of disciplinary authority. Exception applies only in rare cases.

---

GIST OF THE CASE

The respondent (writ petitioner), a Constable in CISF, contracted second marriage with a Mahila Constable during subsistence of first marriage without obtaining divorce. Department initiated proceedings under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001. After inquiry, punishment of compulsory retirement with 2/3rd gratuity was imposed (11.01.2017). Appeal and revision were dismissed.

The learned Single Judge set aside the punishment and remanded the matter directing imposition of any penalty other than compulsory retirement.

In appeal, the Division Bench held:

• The misconduct of contracting second marriage is grave.

• The disciplinary authority considered proportionality.

• Courts cannot substitute penalty unless it shocks conscience.

• Remanding with direction to impose lesser punishment is contrary to settled law.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal was allowed and the order of compulsory retirement was restored.

---

PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN

1. Power to impose punishment lies primarily with disciplinary authority.

2. Judicial review on quantum of punishment is limited to cases where penalty shocks conscience.

3. Bigamous marriage by member of disciplined force constitutes grave misconduct.

4. Courts should not fix a “cap” on punishment while remanding.

5. Sympathy or impact on dependents is not determinative in cases of serious indiscipline.

---

CASES REFERRED

1. B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749.

2. D.K. Nanjundaiah v. Chief Quality Assurance Officer, (2008) 2 AIR Kant R 390 : 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 616.

3. Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Bholanath Singh, (1997) 3 SCC 657 : AIR 1997 SC 1908.

4. Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372.

5. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 Supreme (Online) (Del) 5110.

6. J. Bernard Philip Leo v. The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, (Madras High Court).

---

DISPOSITION

Writ Appeal Allowed.
Order dated 05.03.2024 in W.P.No.14766 of 2018 set aside.
Order dated 11.01.2017 imposing compulsory retirement restored and confirmed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

---

2025:APHC:62998