Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma upheld the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional orders imposing compulsory retirement on a member of a uniformed force for entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first. The Bench concluded that such conduct constitutes misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, and that major penalties may be imposed for violations involving members of disciplined forces.

The matter concerns disciplinary proceedings initiated against a constable of a uniformed force on the allegation that he entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, in violation of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The disciplinary authority issued a memorandum framing two charges: contracting a second marriage without obtaining a decree of divorce from the first spouse, and suppressing the existence of the first marriage. An inquiry was conducted, after which the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with two-thirds gratuity.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act, Directs Union Government To Establish National Tribunals Commission Within 4 Months

The individual challenged the penalty through an appeal and a revision, both of which were dismissed. He thereafter approached the Court, contending that his second marriage occurred under pressure from family circumstances, that his first marriage had broken down, and that the penalty was harsh and unrelated to his official duties. He argued that the authorities failed to consider his service record and personal difficulties.

The department asserted that the employee, as a member of a disciplined force, was prohibited from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first and had not produced any decree of divorce. It maintained that adequate opportunity was provided during the inquiry and that the penalty imposed was proportionate to the misconduct proved.

The Division Bench recorded that “the second marriage of the Writ petitioner during the subsistence of the first marriage is not in dispute.” It further noted that “opting the second marriage, during the subsistence of the first marriage is an indiscipline and violation of Rule 21 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules 2001.”

The Court referred to the punishment imposed and observed that the disciplinary authority had already considered the petitioner’s personal circumstances: “considering 10 years of service to the organisation and family responsibilities, by exercising the power conferred under Rule 32 of CISF Rules, in conjunction with Rule 34 of sub-Rule (iii) CISF Rules, 2001, penalty of compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd gratuity is awarded.”

It recorded the concurrence of superior authorities: “The appellate authority also specifically observed that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority under the impugned award is found to be well commensurate with gravity of the rule and charge.” and “Revisional authority after considering the orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority found that the punishment awarded is proportionate to the gravity of charge.”

Referring to the Single Judge’s view, the Division Bench stated that sympathy could not form a basis for reducing the punishment: “The concern of the learned Single Judge is that the dependents will suffer. In every case of a major penalty, the dependents will suffer. In certain situations involving serious violations of law, sympathy shall have no role.”

The Court recorded that the petitioner’s justification could not be accepted: “there is conscious opting of two marriages by the writ petitioner and pressure of parents etc., is only a lame excuse.”

On proportionality, it held that the interference by the Single Judge was unwarranted: “Generally while not interfering with the findings of the charge, interfering with the quantum of punishment is not advisable unless the quantum of punishment is shocking the conscience of the Court.”

The Court concluded that the punishment was not disproportionate: “The punishment of compulsory retirement ordered for opting conscious bigamous marriage by the writ petitioner is not disproportionate.”

Also Read: Land Loved Like A Mother By Displaced Families Must Not Be Taken On Broken Promises: State Must Fulfil Assured Employment Under Rehabilitation Scheme: AP High Court

The Court directed that “the impugned orders dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14766 of 2018 are set aside.  The orders dated 11.01.2017 passed by the 5th respondent and consequential orders passed by the 4th respondent/appellate authority and the 3rd respondent/revisional authority imposing compulsory retirement of the Writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, shall stand restored and confirmed.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, Central Government Counsel
For the Respondents: Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar

Case Title: The Director General, CISF & Others v. Kudipudi Suri Babu & Another
Neutral Citation: APHC010603432024
Case Number: Writ Appeal No.48 of 2025
Bench: Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma