Bigamous marriage constitutes grave misconduct, and dismissal from service is not disproportionate.

The appellant, a Station Officer in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, was proceeded against departmentally after his wife, the fourth respondent, complained that he had contracted a second marriage with Smt. Karthika, constituting bigamy and misconduct under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973.

A charge memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Following an enquiry, the charge of bigamous marriage was held proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed dismissal from service.

On appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment to compulsory retirement, taking into account the appellant’s 27 years and 10 months of service.

The appellant challenged the modified punishment in W.P. No. 31578 of 2025, which was dismissed on 22 August 2025, leading to the present writ appeal.

1. Whether the finding that the appellant had committed misconduct by contracting a bigamous marriage was supported by the evidence on record.

2. Whether dismissal from service, or the reduced punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the appellate authority, was disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate authority’s modification of the punishment to compulsory retirement.

The Court applied Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, under which contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage constitutes misconduct.

The disciplinary proceedings were governed by Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which permits formal departmental enquiry for major misconduct.

The Court further applied the principle that punishment must be assessed with reference to the gravity of the proved misconduct and that judicial review over disciplinary punishment is limited, particularly where the finding is supported by evidence and the punishment is not legally or demonstrably disproportionate.

No precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the Enquiry Officer’s conclusion was based on documentary and other evidence showing that both women had resided in Government quarters for approximately 13 years, that a child had been born to the second wife, and that the appellant was recorded as the child’s father in school documents.

These circumstances sufficiently supported the finding of bigamous marriage and established grave misconduct under Rule 19.

Although the disciplinary authority had imposed dismissal, the appellate authority had already taken a lenient view by reducing the punishment to compulsory retirement in recognition of the appellant’s long service of 27 years and 10 months.

The Court held that dismissal could not be characterised as disproportionate to the seriousness of the proved misconduct and found no further basis to interfere with the appellate authority’s lesser punishment.

The Court upheld the finding that the appellant had committed grave misconduct by contracting a bigamous marriage and held that dismissal from service would not have been disproportionate to that misconduct.

However, since the appellate authority had already reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement on account of the appellant’s long service, the Court declined to interfere with that order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.