Legal Principle: Dismissal based on admission of polygamy in disciplinary inquiry does not violate natural justice.

The petitioner, a Constable Bugler in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenged orders of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority (02.09.2022), the appellate authority (20.12.2022), and the revisional authority (24.04.2023).

The departmental inquiry followed a complaint by Rachna Yadav alleging that the petitioner contracted three marriages (with Usha Devi, Vandana Yadav, and Rachna Yadav) through deceptive means while claiming to be an Assistant Commandant.

While the petitioner was acquitted in a separate criminal case for polygamy at Police Station Mauranipur, the departmental inquiry found him guilty based on his own statements and documentary evidence like Backward Caste and Domicile Certificates naming Vandana Yadav as his wife.

The petitioner contended the inquiry was vitiated as no witnesses were examined and he was denied cross-examination.

Whether the evidence available on record, specifically the petitioner’s admissions, could be legally relied upon to penalize him in a departmental inquiry despite the non-examination of prosecution witnesses.

The court primarily applied the principles of administrative law governing departmental inquiries under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the doctrine that "admissions are the best evidence" against a party, which dispenses with the requirement of formal proof by witnesses when a delinquent employee confesses to material facts during the inquiry.

The court also emphasized the requirement of "strict discipline" in paramilitary forces like the CRPF, where moral turpitude or polygamy without legal dissolution of a prior marriage constitutes misconduct.

The court examined the departmental inquiry report and noted that the petitioner explicitly admitted to his first marriage with Usha Devi in 2005 and the existence of two daughters.

Crucially, during cross-examination by the Presenting Officer, the petitioner admitted he had not legally divorced Usha Devi.

He further admitted to having a relationship with Rachna Yadav and executed a written "divorce" affidavit with her on 02.09.2020 which included their photographs.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner admitted to a second marriage (via the divorce affidavit) while his first marriage was still subsisting, the charge of polygamy was substantiated by his own testimony.

The court found that the lack of witness testimony was not fatal to the inquiry because the petitioner’s own contradictory and admitting statements established the misconduct.

The court found that the petitioner’s conduct was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force like the CRPF. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the punishment of removal from service and dismissed the writ petition.