No doubt, in this case the entire life of the appellant has also been put to blast because of this infringement by him in his life. The appellant has tried to explain this by relating it to custom in his community and the fact that his first marriage was when he was too young. The life of the appellant, and with him that of his wife, has also been ruined with nobody to get any benefit. There may not be a justification to retain a person in service if he has violated any condition, which is an essential pre-requisite for his enrollment. The question, thus, here would be to see whether any punitive action would be called for or was otherwise permissible under law. Even if there was power available to discontinue the service of the appellant by way of dismissal or termination on the ground of his contacting a second marriage, then provision of enabling section was to be invoked and the relevant procedure followed. Show cause notice issued was not on the ground of conviction for offence for which appellant was released on probation. An act of contracting second marriage may have rendered the appellant unsuitable, ineligible or disqualified for further continuing in service but he could have been removed from service only after following proper procedure, which was not done. Other options under Rule 20 were also open and the appellant could have been either dismissed, removal, retired or called upon to resign. These options were concededly not even considered. The power to dismiss the appellant may be available with the Commandant being the Prescribed Officer to exercise power under Section 11(2) but this could have been so exercised by invoking the procedure as prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rule. The impugned order having been passed by invoking a wrong provision, which did not leave any power with the Commandant to pass an order of dismissal or removal as such, can not be sustained either in
