The Supreme Court set aside High Court orders and upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable for contracting a second marriage, stressing that courts cannot act as appellate authorities in disciplinary matters. Invoking “dura lex sed lex”, the Court held that hardship cannot override clear statutory rules governing disciplined forces.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has overturned the orders passed by the High Court which had directed that a lesser punishment be imposed on a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who was dismissed from service for contracting a second marriage while his first wife was alive.
The Apex Court clearly held that the High Court went beyond its limits while exercising judicial review and wrongly interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Emphasising the legal principle “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law), the Supreme Court restored the order of dismissal.
The appeal was filed by the Union of India challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had agreed with the Single Judge’s view that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent, Pranab Kumar Nath, was “much too harsh a penalty.”
The High Court had directed the CISF authorities to reconsider the matter and impose a lesser punishment instead of dismissal.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal and held that the High Court acted like an appellate authority, which it is not permitted to do while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that interference with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was not justified and restored the original dismissal order.
Pranab Kumar Nath joined the CISF as a Constable on July 22, 2006. While he was posted at the 3rd NDRF Battalion in Mundali, Odisha, his wife, Mrs. Chandana Nath, submitted a written complaint alleging that he had married another woman, Mrs. Parthana Das, on March 14, 2016, during the subsistence of their marriage.
Following this complaint, a Charge Memorandum dated July 7, 2016 was issued against him. Under Article of Charge-I, he was accused of contracting a second marriage while his first wife was alive, which amounted to a violation of Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. Under Article of Charge-II, he was accused of neglecting his wife and minor daughter, which was treated as grave misconduct and indiscipline.
After a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on May 19, 2017, confirming the charges against the respondent.
Based on this report, the Senior Commandant, who was the Disciplinary Authority, dismissed him from service on July 1, 2017. The dismissal order was later upheld by both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.
The respondent then approached the High Court challenging his dismissal. The Single Judge of the High Court held that dismissal was too severe and observed that removal from service would be a more appropriate punishment. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Union of India filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. However, the Division Bench also took the view that although entering into a second marriage amounted to indiscipline, it was “not such a serious act of misconduct to warrant this punishment.”
The Division Bench further reasoned that dismissal would cause severe financial hardship to the respondent and his family, which would be disproportionate to the misconduct. The High Court therefore directed the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser punishment.
The Supreme Court carefully examined Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which deals with disqualification. The rule clearly provides that no person who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living shall be eligible for appointment to the Force.
While analysing the impact of such misconduct on disciplined forces, the Court observed:
“It is generally understood that acts, whether in personal or professional life, if they involve the possibility of domestic discord, financial vulnerability or divided responsibilities, they have the potential to adversely impact operational efficacy given mental/psychological stability is key.”
The Bench reiterated that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited and does not allow the High Court to re-examine the punishment as if it were an appellate court.
The Supreme Court relied on settled precedents to underline this principle, including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995), where it was held that judicial review is not an appeal against a decision but a review of the decision-making process.
The Court also referred to High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil (2000), which held that departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts and that the adequacy of evidence cannot be questioned before the High Court.
Further reliance was placed on Union of India v. K.G. Soni (2006), where the Court held that interference with punishment is permissible only if it shocks the conscience of the court.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench committed serious errors by substituting their own views on punishment.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Says Maternity Leave Is Every Woman’s Right – Even After Second Marriage
The Court clearly stated:
“Clause 18-B is a clause prescribing penal consequences for an action and it is trite in law that any provision of law or rule framed under a statute prescribing penal consequences, has to be strictly construed…”
Reiterating the binding nature of statutory rules, the Court applied the maxim “dura lex sed lex” and observed:
“Inconvenience or unpleasant consequences of violation of law cannot detract from the prescription of the law.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, set aside the judgments passed by the High Court, and restored the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.
Case Title:
Union of India & Ors. v. Pranab Kumar Nath
Civil Appeal No. 15068
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18702 of 2023.
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Second Marriage
