Bigamy and Forgery of Official Identity Documents by Personnel Justify Dismissal from Disciplined Forces

The petitioner, a Constable in the 152 Bn. of the CRPF, was dismissed from service on 11-12-2014 following a Departmental Proceeding

The charges involved: (i) forging a service identity card by changing his name to "Devasish Singha" to enter into a relationship with one Smti. L. Nandita Singha

(ii) contracting a second marriage with Smti. Premabati Singha without divorcing his first wife, L. Nandita Singha, or obtaining government permission

(iii) suppressing information regarding a criminal case (U/S 493/417/323/506/34 IPC) registered against him at Udarband P.S.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing the first marriage was not legally established and the criminal case was subsequently set aside

1. Whether the disciplinary authority’s findings regarding the tampering of an official government document (ID card) were based on admissible evidence

2. Whether the petitioner’s conduct amounted to bigamy under service rules despite the lack of formal proof of traditional rituals

3. Whether the non-disclosure of a pending criminal case constitutes a punishable misconduct regardless of the eventual acquittal/quashing of the case

4. Whether the penalty of dismissal from service was proportionate to the established misconduct for a member of a disciplined force

The court primarily applied Rule 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Act, 1949, and Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

Rule 15 prohibits a member of the Force from marrying a second time while a spouse is still living without prior government permission

The court also relied on the principle that in disciplinary matters, a high standard of conduct is required for members of a "disciplined force," where acts of moral turpitude or fraud (cheating) warrant severe penalties

The court found that the charge of tampering with a government document was established through the testimony of Witness No. 2, who produced the forged ID card given to her by the petitioner for marriage registration

Regarding the second charge, the court rejected the petitioner’s technical defense that the first marriage lacked traditional rituals; it noted that the petitioner had executed affidavits asserting the validity of the first marriage before a Notary Public and had followed an identical modus operandi (temple marriage followed by affidavit) for the second marriage

The court held that the petitioner’s deliberate entry into two marriages without legal dissolution of the first violated Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules

On the third charge, the court clarified that the misconduct lay in the non-disclosure of the FIR to the department, rendering the subsequent setting aside of the criminal case by a Revisional Court irrelevant to the disciplinary charge of suppression

The court concluded that reinstating a person guilty of bigamy and fraud into a disciplined force would adversely affect the force's image and moral fiber. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the order of dismissal dated 11-12-2014 and the appellate order dated 13-03-2015