Dismissed

Amit Kumar v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2025SPLA/113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A railway employee terminated under police rules for remarrying during his first marriage challenged the dismissal, arguing the first marriage was void as it was solemnized on notarized stamp paper. The court found the fact of marriage undisputed, corroborated by registration certificate, witness statements and conduct, upheld disciplinary findings, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amit Kumar vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 113 of 2025

Amit Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

U.O.I. thru. Secy. Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Pal Singh Yadav, Prathama Singh	Ashish Kumar Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I.

¶8

Chief Justice's Court

¶9

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Pal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

By means of this intra court appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Writ-A No.38 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the services of the appellant have been terminated invoking Rule 14(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶13

It is urged that a complaint was made by one Mithul Chaudhary, who is also a colleague in the respondent established. It was alleged by her that the appellant had misconducted himself as during the subsistence of his first marriage, he had married again. Upon the aforesaid complaint an inquiry was initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway-I, G.R.P., Lucknow, who submitted his report on 23.01.2023 confirming the fact that the appellant had married again during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. It is noticing the aforesaid that by means of the order dated 15.03.2022 the services of the appellant were terminated. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed on 05.07.2022, where after both the orders were assailed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge who by means of the impugned judgment

¶14

SPLA No. 113 of 2025

¶15

¶16

and order dated 16.01.2025 dismissed the writ petition which led the appellant to file the instant intra court appeal.

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complaint was filed by a constable, namely, Mithul Chaudhary alleging that the appellant had remarried while his first marriage was subsisting. He submitted that the first marriage with Mithul Chaudhary was legally non-nest as it was solemnized on a notarized stamp paper, which is legally impermissible and no liability can be attributed to the appellant. It is urged that if such a marriage is not recognized in law, then it could not have been made the basis of an inquiry. Thus, the punishment of dispensing the service of the appellant is also bad in law.

¶18

It was further urged that even during the inquiry proceedings the evidence before the Inquiry Officer was the alleged stamp paper upon which it is alleged that the appellant had married Mithul Chaudhary and a certificate of registration of marriage which also could not have any value in law as the marriage itself was void.

¶19

Thus, the crux of the submission was that once the basic marriage itself could not be proved on the basis of inadmissible evidence or a certificate of registration of marriage which had no legal sanctity and the marriage was void as per the complainant herself. Hence, such a marriage cannot be recognized to conclude that the appellant had remarried during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the material available on record appropriately and did not consider this aspect of the matter rather dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge is suspectable to judicial intervention by this appellate court.

¶20

Shri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent while refuting the aforesaid submissions has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and urged that there was clear material available on record before the Inquiry Officer which clearly indicated that the appellant had remarried despite subsistence of his earlier marriage.

¶21

It is also pointed out that even in the writ petition preferred by the appellant there are clear averments which are in the nature of an

¶22

SPLA No. 113 of 2025

¶23

¶24

admission and in light thereof it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any error.

¶25

It has also been pointed out that the fact that the appellant and Mithul Chaudhary were residing as man and wife and also got their social union recognised through a certificate of registration of marriage, is sufficient material including the statement of witnesses recorded, during the inquiry proceeding, which clearly established that the appellant had remarried during subsistence of his first marriage and in such circumstances, he was clearly guilty of bigamy and by invoking the appropriate rules, the inquiry was done and it led to the termination of the appellant's service. For the aforesaid reasons, it is urged that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶27

At the outset, it may be noticed that in the writ petition filed by the appellant, it was stated that the appellant frequently used to meet Mithul Chaudhary in Bareilly and he also met her in the year 2018. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that Mithul Chaudhary was also married and during subsistence of the marriage of Mithul Chaudhary, she married the appellant in the year 2018 and in 2019 the appellant married Ms. Neetu.

¶28

The record would indicate that the marriage of the appellant and Mithul Chaudhary was registered in the office of Sub Registrar in District Bareilly. A copy of the said certificate of marriage has been filed on record by the respondent alongwith their counter-affidavit dated 12.05.2025. From the perusal of the said certificate of registration of marriage it indicates that on the basis of information given by the appellant, that the marriage between the appellant and Mithul Chaudhary was solemnized on 12.09.2018 and since they wanted to get their marriage recognized they presented themselves for registration of their marriage on 18.02.2020. On the said date, the said marriage certificate was issued.

¶29

The record further indicates that during the disciplinary inquiry apart

¶30

SPLA No. 113 of 2025

¶31

¶32

from the aforesaid certificate statement of witnesses were also recorded by the Inquiry Officer which substantiated the relationship between the appellant and Mithul Chaudhary as man and wife and based on such evidence the punishment order was passed.

¶33

It also could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had married Ms. Neetu. The factum of two marriages is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the second marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of the earlier marriage.

¶34

The appellant has also brought on record a copy of the petition preferred under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Mithul Chaudhary which was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bareilly on 23.05.2023 and an ex parte decree was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bareilly on 04.03.2024 declaring the marriage as void. It is not disputed that the said decree has not been challenged by the appellant. Hence, the content of the judgment binds the appellant including the reasons and grounds upon which the judgment has been passed.

¶35

The record also indicates that after the decision was given by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bareilly in Matrimonial Case No.967 of 2023 which was filed by Mithul Chaudhary and was decreed, the appellant also filed a separate petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2025, passed in Case No.113 of 2025, on the premise that the earlier petition filed by Mithul Chaudhary had been decreed. The very fact that after the decision dated 04.03.2024 on the petition filed by Mithul Chaudhary, the appellant filed a separate petition, is also indicative of the fact that the appellant also understood that his marriage with Mithul Chaudhary was subsisting and he wants to get the marriage annulled. These facts and conduct of the appellant is indicative of the marital status of the appellant and cannot come to the aid of the appellant.

¶36

Be that as it may, the fact still remains that even though the marriage may have been declared void for falling foul of Section 5 of the Hindu

¶37

SPLA No. 113 of 2025

¶38

¶39

Marriage Act, 1955 but it can not be disputed by the appellant that he had solemnized the marriage, while his marriage was subsisting with Mithul Chaudhary. Even taking the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, at its face value that the marriage between the appellant and Mithul Chaudhary, on a stamp paper was void or that Mithul Chaudhary was married at the time when she solemnized the marriage with the appellant, as well as the fact that the certificate of registration of marriage was void too, but the fact remains that this could be a ground vis-a-vis the appellant and Mithul Chaudhary but it could not be disputed that they were residing together as man and wife and they even presented themselves for getting their marriage registered before a public officer having statutory powers, in pursuance whereof a certificate of registration of marriage was issued.

¶40

Assuming that the said certificate was bad as the Registrar may not have had a territorial jurisdiction but the fact remains that the appellant gave and disclosed information of his marriage with Mithul Chaudhary while filing necessary documents for registering the marriage including declaring their status to be unmarried in the year 2020, whereas as per the appellant he had already married Ms. Neetu in 2019. Moreover, the statement recorded during the inquiry proceeding also corroborated the aforesaid facts and this in itself is enough incriminating material before the disciplinary authority to proceed against the appellant.

¶41

The very fact Mithul Chaudhary filed a petition in the Family Court at Bareilly disclosing her status as, wife of the appellant, and taking a clear defence that the marriage was void since the appellant was already married, hence it cannot be said that the view taken by the departmental authority as well as the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition suffers from any palpable error which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid appeal.

¶42

It may also be relevant to notice that the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Shanidev and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 6441 to buttress his submission that a certificate of registration of marriage, if fraudulent would not confer any right. However, taking note

¶43

SPLA No. 113 of 2025

¶44

¶45

of the aforesaid decision in Shanidev (supra), this Court finds that the said judgment relates to orders passed in a bunch of petitions which were filed in nature of the public interest litigation wherein certain anomalies were discovered while issuing certificate of registration of marriage and it is in the aforesaid circumstances, directions were issued by the learned Single Judge to streamline the process and to avoid the misuse.

¶46

However, the same has no impact on the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the factum of marriage is not in dispute. Whether the marriage was appropriately registered or not is a different issue altogether but it is not disputed by the appellant himself that he alongwith Mithul Chaudhary had gone and presented themselves before the Registrar concerned to get a certificate of registration of their marriage and that he married Ms. Neetu in 2019.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pinki v. Pushpendra Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine All 5885 cited by the learned counsel for the appellant also does not come to his aid.

¶48

Disciplinary proceedings are different to regular proceedings before the Court. Hence misconduct in terms of the Service Rules applicable to the appellant is clearly made out and there is no allegation that the course of enquiry was vitiated for any procedural lapse and moreover the departmental appeal has also been dismissed.

¶49

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶51

December 16, 2025 ank

¶52

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amit Kumar v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Govt. Lko and 2 Others vs Dr. Dhan Prakash Goel and 8 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.of Higher Education,Lko. and 2 Others vs Dr. Rekha Singh and 8 Others

Rati Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minor Irrigation Lko. and 3 Others

Distt. Basic Education Officer Lakhimpur Kheri vs Smt. Pushpa Devi and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others vs Arvind Kumar

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Mohd. Nafees