New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the removal of a Chhattisgarh Police constable from service for performing a second marriage without taking prior permission from the state government.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar declined to interfere with the January 2020 order passed by a division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant.
The bench noted that the punishment for removal from service has been imposed on the petitioner – Mehatru Baddhai – for committing breach of Section 22, paras 1 and 2 of the Civil Services Conduct Rules. The said provision stipulates that that “No government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him.”
The petitioner – who was appointed as a constable with Chhattisgarh police – had submitted an application for adding the name of second wife and minor child in his service record as nominee.
In his application, he mentioned that his first marriage took place in the year 2005, but when his first wife did not conceive even after long marital life, she gave her consent to him for performing a second marriage.
On account of said consent, he performed a second marriage and was blessed with a female child. After considering the enquiry report as well as the statement given by the employee, the disciplinary authority passed an order for removal of petitioner from service and the Appellate Authority has affirmed that order.
His mercy plea was also rejected by the competent authority.
In his special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner pointed out a flaw in the memo of charges arguing that it did not allege that the second marriage was contracted by the petitioner without obtaining permission of the state government.
At this, the apex court said: “We have ourselves gone through the memo of charges and we are satisfied that the Articles of Charge in substance contains the allegations for breach of the aforesaid Rules against him. We verified from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the state as to whether he had applied for any permission or not and the answer to that query was in the negative.”
(IANS)
