Allahabad High Court Upholds CRPF Constable’s Dismissal Over Second Marriage Without Divorce

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still legally in force and without taking prior permission from the department.

In an order dated August 13, the court rejected the challenge to his removal from service and held that marrying again while a spouse was still living amounted to misconduct under the service rules governing CRPF personnel. It also turned down the plea that dismissal was too harsh, saying no ground had been shown to justify interference with the disciplinary authority’s decision.

First Marriage Never Legally Ended

According to the case record, the constable had married years before joining the force. Later, his first wife left the matrimonial home with their children, and he claimed he was unable to trace her despite efforts to locate her.

Even so, the marriage was never dissolved by a decree of divorce. Several years later, while that marriage continued to subsist in law, he contracted a second marriage.

The court noted that he neither obtained a divorce from his first wife nor secured prior permission from the competent departmental authority before marrying again. The second wife’s name was later entered in his service records as a nominee, but the court said the department was not told that she was in fact a second wife or that the earlier marriage was still legally valid.

Inquiry, Dismissal and Failed Appeals

The matter eventually came to the notice of the authorities, after which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the CRPF personnel. During the departmental inquiry, the allegation of a second marriage was found to be proved.

On that basis, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service in 2011 under the provisions applicable to misconduct by CRPF members. His departmental appeal and later review were both rejected, leading him to approach the Allahabad High Court.

Petitioner Says Punishment Was Excessive

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances. He said his first wife had left the matrimonial home and could not be traced, and claimed that the department had effectively been informed of his later marriage because the second wife’s name had been entered as a nominee in his service records.

He also argued that disciplinary action had been initiated after an inordinate delay, even though the nomination had remained in the official records for a long period. On that basis, he asked the court to interfere with the punishment imposed on him.

Court Cites CRPF and Conduct Rules

The High Court rejected those submissions and examined the service framework governing members of disciplined forces. It referred to Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which restricts a member of the force from contracting another marriage while having a living spouse. The court also took note of Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which deals with marriage by government servants who already have a spouse living.

The court said personnel of the CRPF are bound by the conduct requirements applicable to the force and cannot enter into another marriage in violation of those rules. Since the first marriage had never been legally dissolved, the second marriage was contracted while the first spouse was still alive and the marriage remained subsisting in law.

The court further observed that even where personal law might allow another marriage, a member of the force would still have to comply with the applicable service rules and obtain departmental permission. In the court’s view, these restrictions are especially important in disciplined forces, where standards of conduct extend beyond purely operational matters.

On that reasoning, the court held that contracting the second marriage without satisfying the legal and departmental requirements amounted to misconduct that could properly attract disciplinary punishment.

No Acceptance of the ‘Nominee’ Argument

The High Court also addressed the argument that the department had known about the second marriage because the woman’s name had been recorded as nominee in the service papers. It said that such an entry did not amount to a disclosure that she was a second wife while the earlier marriage was still valid.

According to the court, had the constable clearly disclosed the full facts when the nomination was made, departmental action could have been taken then itself. Instead, the court treated the omission as concealment rather than proper intimation to the authorities.

This finding also weakened the petitioner’s claim that the department had long been aware of the marriage but had failed to act on it.

Punishment Not Found Disproportionate

On the question of penalty, the High Court reiterated the settled position that courts in judicial review do not ordinarily replace the disciplinary authority’s view with their own. Interference with punishment is generally warranted only when the penalty is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court, or when it is contrary to law.

The court found no such reason in this case. The misconduct had been established in the departmental inquiry, and the petitioner had not shown that dismissal was either legally impermissible or grossly disproportionate to the offence proved against him.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CRPF’s decision to remove the constable from service.

The ruling highlights the strict conduct standards applied to personnel serving in the CRPF and other disciplined forces. While marriage is ordinarily a private matter, serving personnel remain subject to rules that regulate such conduct when it affects discipline, integrity and official records.

It also stresses that merely updating nomination or family details is not enough if material facts are withheld. For personnel in uniform, the judgment serves as a reminder that a second marriage during the subsistence of an earlier one, without the required permission and disclosure, can lead to serious service consequences.