DEEP NARAYAN BAURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to quash the order dtd. 8/6/2019, passed by the Commandant No. 106 Bn. RAF, CRPF, Jamshedpur as well as order dtd. 3/10/2019, passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF (RAF), Dehradun, Uttarkhand.

(2.) The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. While the petitioner was working as Constable under the CRPF, show-cause notice was issued to him for the offence that he has solemnized 2ndmarriage with one Reshma Devi during the lifetime of his 1stwife namely, Usha Devi. The petitioner submitted his reply stating therein that he was unaware of the provisions of Rule-11(1) of the CRPF and when he entered into an agreement of divorce from his 1stwife on 5/1/2016 he thought that now he is free to contract 2ndmarriage and hence, he solemnized the marriage with his 2ndwife namely Reshma Devi. However, being not satisfied with grounds raised by the petitioner in his show-cause reply, the respondents have initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner by appointing Enquiry Officer. In the departmental proceeding both oral as well as documentary evidences were produced and the petitioner was given opportunity to present his case and cross-examine the respondent's witness which he has availed accordingly. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by exercising the power of Sec. 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule-27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 passed the order of punishment removing the petitioner from the services on the ground that petitioner has concealed the material fact that he has solemnized 2ndmarriage during the lifetime of his 1stwife which is not permissible under the Hindu Marriage Act and amounts to gross misconduct. Being dissatisfied with the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal but the same stood dismissed and the order of punishment has been affirmed. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act against his 1stwife vide judgment dtd. 29/11/2018, passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 51 of 2018, which fact has not been considered by the respondents while removing the petitioner from service.

(3.) Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned orders on the ground that the respondents have not considered the material facts that petitioner has already obtained consent from his 1st wife by way of an agreement and thereafter, solemnized 2ndmarriage and as such, he has not committed any offence as envisaged under CRPF Act and CRPF Rules. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has rendered more than 14 years of unblemished service career and only on the basis of complaint lodged by her 1stwife that the petitioner has solemnized 2nd marriage, the respondents have inflicted major punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel submits that the appellate authority has also not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and mechanically dismissed the same by affirming the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside and petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.