Petitioner challenged his removal for bigamy, claiming language barriers prevented an accurate enquiry. This court found the second marriage proven beyond doubt via witness statements and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the penalty of removal.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~17
HARI BEHERA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. D.K.Sharma, Asstt. Commandant
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA O R D E R % 17.04.2017
The petitioner impugns penalty of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority vide dated 20.1.2014 and the
orders dated 23.7.2014 and 21.1.2015 passed in the appeal and revision affirming the penalty.
Nagar in Ghaziabad died on 31.3.2013, after suffering burn injuries on 30.3.2013. Thereafter, the factum of the second marriage came to the notice of the respondents as this was withheld and concealed. The aforesaid acts of the petitioner besides being immoral, had sullied the image of the disciplined force and amounted to gross indiscipline. Second marriage is a disqualification in terms of Rule 18 of CISF Rules, 2001.
(Mother’s sister of late Subhadra) are clear and categorical. Other witnesses, including PW4 Manoj Kumar had deposed that the petitioner was living on rent with Subhadra and his son in this house with effect from July, 2012. Noticeably, the petitioner had initially in the disciplinary proceedings accepted that he had married Subhadra on 20.3.2011, but the second marriage was because of insistence and
under pressure from his first wife. The contention of the petitioner that this version was given and recorded as the petitioner did not know Hindi and English, is unacceptable and sham.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J
APRIL 17, 2017 mw
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was merit in the petitioner's contention that his version about the second marriage was false due to language barriers.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority regarding removal from service for second marriage.
HARI BEHERA
UNION OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
