Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated the 17th July, 1982, passed by the Commandant, GC CRPF--MKG and as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner was communicated with the result of the departmental enquiry held against him as a member of the Central Reserve Police Force that he has been found guilty and has been dismissed from service with effect from the 15th July, 1982 (Afternoon). 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner who, at the relevant time, had been working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force constituted under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Act") a complaint was made by his wife Kanti Devi to the effect that the petitioner had not been maintaining her and he contracted a second marriage by marrying another girl named Shanti Devi. The aforementioned complaint was in the pen of the petitioners son Ranbir Singh. The said complaint petition is contained in Annexure E/1 to the counter-affidavit. 3. From a perusal of the said Annexure E/1, it appears that on an earlier occasion also, similar complaint was made by Kanti Devi. On that occasion, the petitioner promised to maintain her but he did not fulfil his promises. Upon the aforementioned complaint, a preliminary enquiry was initiated as against the petitioner. The said enquiry was conducted by one Shri S.D Pandey. The said Shri Pandey made an enquiry from the complainant as also from other persons. Before Shri Pandey the petitioner categorically admitted that he had married Shanti Devi and had been living with both of his wives. 4. After the aforementioned enquiry a report was submitted on the 21st April, 1982, by the aforementioned Shri Pandey, recommending initiation of a departmental proceeding as against the petitioner The said report is contained in Annexure D to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter an article of charges which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application was framed. 4. After the aforementioned enquiry a report was submitted on the 21st April, 1982, by the aforementioned Shri Pandey, recommending initiation of a departmental proceeding as against the petitioner The said report is contained in Annexure D to the counter-affidavit. Thereafter an article of charges which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application was framed. The said charge reads as follows:- - Article--I That the said No. 620080015/Mochi Lal Singh, while functioning as Constable Mochi in Grop Centre CRPF, Mokamehghat during the period in that he has contracted plural marriage with one Shanti Devi when his legally married wife named Smt. Kanti Devi is still alive and as such he has violated the provisions of Rule 15 of CRPF, Rules, 1955, wilfully and knowingly. Thus No 6200-80015 of Ct. Mochi Lal Singh has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force which is punishable under Sec.11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. 5. In the domestic enquiry, several witnesses were examined and various other documents were also proved. Before the Enquiring Officer, records of the hospital in respect of treatment of Shanti Devi were produced where in shanti Devi had been described as the wife of the petitioner. However, before the Enquiring Officer, the complainant Kanti Deyi appears to have turned hostile and she stated that the aforementioned Shanti Devi was her sister. Before the Enquiring Officer, the petitioner also retracted his admission made before the Enquiring Officer in the aforementioned preliminary enquiry and, inter alia, alleged that the said purported statements were made by him when he was not mentally fit to make such statements. The disciplinary authority took into consideration the evidence on the record and by reason of his order dated the 15th July, 1982, as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit found the petitioner guilty agreeing with the recommendation of the Enquiring Officer holding therein that the charges of plural marriage as against the petitioner stood proved without any shadow of doubt. 6. Mr. Jageshwar Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the writ application, firstly submitted that this Court should issue a writ quashing the Annexure-A to be counter-affidavit also. 6. Mr. Jageshwar Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the writ application, firstly submitted that this Court should issue a writ quashing the Annexure-A to be counter-affidavit also. On merits of the case, he submitted that the charges against the petitioner being grave in nature, i.e., the petitioner having alleged by contracted plural marriage, it, was incumbent upon the department to prove that there had been a valid and legal marriage by and between the petitioner and the aforementioned Shanti Devi in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Counsel submitted that, in view of the fact that no witness came forward to support the factum of the legal and valid marriage by and between the petitioner and the aforementioned Shanti Devi to the effect that that Saptapadi had been completed, no inference could be drawn by the Enquiring Officer and consequently by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is guilty of contracting a plural marriage. In this connection, the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh V/s. Suresh Chandra Ghosh AIR 1971 SC 1153 . 7. The learned Counsel further submitted that, in the instant case, the prohibition with regard to plural marriage by a member of the Central Reserve Police Force has been prescribed by reason of Rule 15 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Rules"). According to him, the said rule is as ultra vires the rule making power as contained in Sec.18 of the said Act. He further submitted that the order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit as also the order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application are perverse insofar as it based on no evidence whatsoever. 8. Developing his argument, the learned Counsel submitted that, in terms of Rule 2(sic) of the said Rules, no preliminary enquiry is envisaged and, in that view of the matter, any statement made by the petitioner in the said preliminary enquiry must be held to be non est in the eye of law. 8. Developing his argument, the learned Counsel submitted that, in terms of Rule 2(sic) of the said Rules, no preliminary enquiry is envisaged and, in that view of the matter, any statement made by the petitioner in the said preliminary enquiry must be held to be non est in the eye of law. The learned Counsel further submitted that, in any event, as the petitioner, during the course of the departmental proceeding, had resiled from his earlier statement, the enquiring officer had no authority to take into consideration the said purported admission made on behalf of the petitioner and the finding of the Enquiring Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him on the basis of the purported admission is illegal. In this connection, he has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena V/s. The State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) AIR 1961 SC 1070 and J.M. Ajwani V/s. Union of India 1967 Service Law Reporter 471. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, from a perusal of Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, it would appear that the disciplinary authority had relied on five documents, although only two documents, Ext-A and Ext-B, were marked. According to the learned Counsel, in view of Rule 27(3) of the said Rules, only such documents which were marked Exhibits in the departmental proceedings could have been taken into consideration by the Enquiring Officer and, in that view of the matter, no other document save and except Exts. A and B which are Annexure D and E-1 to the counter-affidavit, could have been taken into consideration by the Enquiring Officer. 10. The learned Counsel further submitted that even the charges as against the petitioner were not proved by reason of oral evidence adduced in the departmental proceeding inasmuch as the statements of the witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding, even if taken to be correct on its face value, did not disclosed any offence of plural marriage as against the petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that be it a departmental proceeding or a charge before a Criminal Court, the burden of proof of the department to prove that the petitioner had actually contracted a second marriage remains the same. 11. Mr. The learned Counsel submitted that be it a departmental proceeding or a charge before a Criminal Court, the burden of proof of the department to prove that the petitioner had actually contracted a second marriage remains the same. 11. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that, in a departmental proceeding, rules of evidence as envisaged under the Evidence Act are hot applicable. According to him, in view of the fact that the petitioner had himself admitted in the preliminary enquiry that he had contracted a second marriage, in the departmental proceeding, it was for the petitioner to prove that he made those statements under a legal disability. The learned Counsel submitted that, in this view of the matter, as the petitioner has failed to prove him legal disability in this behalf, the disciplinary authority was justified in passing the impugned order. 12. With regard to the second contention made on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Central Government, submitted that Sec.18 confers a rule making power upon the Central Government for the purpose of carrying the object of the Act. According to him, Sub-section (2) of Sec.18 is merely illustrative in nature and the same does not control the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Sec.18 of the Act. Mr. Giri further drew my attention to Sec.11 of the said Act for the purpose of contending that minor punishments which include the power of dismissal can be inflicted upon a delinquent officer not only in respect of matters enumerated in Sec.11 but also for other misconducts in his capacity as a member of the force. According to him, therefore, Sec.11 provides for a power upon the Central Government to specify as to what would amount to be misconduct be and in this situation, according to the learned Counsel, it was open to the Central Government to frame Rule 15. 13. In reply to the third contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Giri submittad that the value of a retracted admission has to be judged on the touch stone of the materials brought on the record and it was for the Enquiring Officer and consequently the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion as to whether prior admission made by the petitioner was to be acted upon or not. Giri submittad that the value of a retracted admission has to be judged on the touch stone of the materials brought on the record and it was for the Enquiring Officer and consequently the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion as to whether prior admission made by the petitioner was to be acted upon or not. According to the learned Counsel, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot look into the sufficiency of evidence and in view of the fact that there are sufficient materials as found by the disciplinary authority who found the petitioner guilty, no interference with the impugned order by this Court is called for. Mr. Giri further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, this application is not maintainable. 14. Re :- -Contention No. 1:-- There cannot be any doubt that in a departmental proceeding the provisions contained in the Evidence Act are not at all attracted, and the Enquiring Officer, while conducting the departmental proceeding is not only entitled to take into consideration such evidences which are brought on the record although the same may not have been proved strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. In a departmental proceeding, the Enquiring Officer is merely required to apply the principles of natural justice which means that he is precluded from taking into consideration any material behind the back of the delinquent officer. In compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Enquiring Officer also must give an opportunity to the delinquent officer, to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and to produce his own witnesses. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, strict proof of the offence as is required in a criminal case was not required for the purpose of establishing the charges in a departmental proceeding. 15 True it is that, in order to prove a criminal charge the prosecution has to prove that the accused had contracted a valid and legal marriage but, in the instant case as noticed hereinbefore, the departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of the admission made by the petitioner himself. Further, even at the initial stage, the petitioners wife and son made serious allegations as against the petitioner. Further, even at the initial stage, the petitioners wife and son made serious allegations as against the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner made a categorical admission about the second marriage having been contracted by him, it was, in fact, not necessary for the Enquiring Officer to collect any other material on the record. However, as the said admission was made during the preliminary enquiry, a departmental proceeding had to be initiated for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 16. Re : Contention No. 2:- - It is now well-known by reason of the decisions of the Privy Council as also the Supreme court that the extent of rule making power in a statute depends upon the phraseology used therein. From a perusal of Sec.18(1) of the Act, it is evident that the rule making power conferred upon the Central Government is wide, i.e., to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. As noti(sic) hereinbefore, one of the purposes contained in the Central Reserve Police (sic)orce Act and the Rules is to impose minor punishment for disobedience, (sic)glect of duty, or remission in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that, in exercise of its rule making power, the Central Government was authorised to make a provision in the rule as contained in Rule 15 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The said rule reads as (sic):-- 15 Plural Marriages:- -No member of the Force who has a wife living shall contract any other 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 the member of the Force. 17 It is now well-know that the Conduct Rules prescribed for the Government servants invariably contain such provision. It was, thus, in my opinion, open to the Central Government to put an embargo upon the members of the Force from contracting any plural marriage when his spouse was living without first obtaining the permission of the Government. 17 It is now well-know that the Conduct Rules prescribed for the Government servants invariably contain such provision. It was, thus, in my opinion, open to the Central Government to put an embargo upon the members of the Force from contracting any plural marriage when his spouse was living without first obtaining the permission of the Government. It was, therefore, obligatory, in terms of the aforementioned rules on the part of the petitioner to obtain the permission of the Government before he contracted the second marriage. 18. Re : Contention No. 3:- - True it is that, as contended by Shri Sinha, Rule 27 of the said Rules does not make any provision for making a preliminary enquiry into the charges levelled as against a delinquent officer. However, in the instant case, from a perusal of Annexure-El to the counter-affidavit, it appears that an allegation was made by the petitioners first wife to the effect that several other allegations had also been made as against the petitioner on earlier occasion. It appears from Annexure-El that previously an enquiry was conducted by one Shri D.R. Yadav and during the said enquiry the petitioner promised that he would not live with his second wife. It was further alleged in the said application that, however, upon the transfer of Shri D.R. Yadav, the petitioner did not keep his promises and he again started misbehaving with his first wife. 19. From Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit which is the statement of the petitioner himself, it is evident that the petitioner admitted that he had contracted a second marriage. I have carefully considered the statements made by the petitioner in Annexure-E. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner had merely alleged in the departmental proceeding that he was not having sound mind while making the said statements but, from a perusal of Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit, it does not appear that such statements were made by a person who was mentally not fit therefor. As a matter of fact, in reply to each question posed to him, he had made categorical answers and had not made any irrelevant statement whatsoever; not only that; in his said statements he tried to justify his second marriage on the ground that he did so at the instance of his first wife herself. As a matter of fact, in reply to each question posed to him, he had made categorical answers and had not made any irrelevant statement whatsoever; not only that; in his said statements he tried to justify his second marriage on the ground that he did so at the instance of his first wife herself. From the said statements it is clear that the petitioner while admitting his guilt tried to justify his action by throwing the blame upon the first wife, i.e., the complainant herself Such, in my opinion, cannot be a conduct of a person who claims himself to be mentally unfit to make such statement. If in view of the seriousness of the allegation, particularly in view of the prayer made by the first wife of the petitioner in Annexure-E/1 to the effect that she might be paid two-thirds of the salary drawn by the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was directed to he initiated, in ray opinion, no illegality has been committed. In any event, it has not been suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prejudiced thereby. 20. So far as the submission of the learned Counsel to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to resile from his admission is concerned it may be pointed out that a statement of a party to a lis is admissible in evidence. For the purpose of admitting such admission in evidence, it was not even necessary for a Civil Court to draw the attention of the maker of the statement to the earlier statement. However, the Enquiring Officer, in this case, appears to have taken pains in drawing the attention of the petitioner to his earlier statements and allowed him to explain the same. The decision cited by the learned Counsel on this point is of little relevance. In Jagdish Prasad Saxenas case (supra), no proper departmental enquiry was held. In that case, the Supreme Court held in the facts and circumstances thereof, that even if the appellant had made statements which amounted to admission, it is open to doubt whether he could be removed from service without holding a formal enquiry as required by the rules. In the case before the Supreme Court, therefore, it is evident that no enquiry whatsoever was held. Such is not the position here. In the case before the Supreme Court, therefore, it is evident that no enquiry whatsoever was held. Such is not the position here. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in J.M. Ajwanis case is concerned, it was clearly held therein that where an admission is made by a public servant against his own fraudulent conduct in another departmental proceeding, such admission was admissible in evidence. However, in the case before the Supreme Court, the delinquent officer did not resile from his earlier admission. This decision, therefore, instead of helping the petitioner goes against him. As in the instant case also, the admission of the petitioner has been taken into consideration as a piece of evidence and the petitioner was given an opportunity by the Enquiring Officer to explain the same. 21. It is true that except marking exhibits A and B, no other documents; have been marked. However, from a perusal of Rule 27(3) upon which great reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it does not appear that the documents which were brought on the record must be marked as an exhibit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 reads as follows:- - When the documents are relied upon in support of the charge they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was "not allowed to inspect the documents which were brought on the record. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself admitted that he was merely allowed to inspect the documents but no copies thereof were furnished to him. In any event, in my opinion, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect the document, the petitioner cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any way whatsoever only because some documents had not been marked. Documents are marked exhibits only for their identification. It is further evident from Annexure-9 (d), i.e., the statement made by the petitioner himself that he sought to explain the documents called for from the hospital for the purpose of showing that Shanti Devi therein was described as the wife of the petitioner,. Documents are marked exhibits only for their identification. It is further evident from Annexure-9 (d), i.e., the statement made by the petitioner himself that he sought to explain the documents called for from the hospital for the purpose of showing that Shanti Devi therein was described as the wife of the petitioner,. Thus, the petitioner, on his own showing, in fact, not only inspected the documents but sought to explain the same which were used against him. The petitioner, therefore, was not prejudiced by non-marking of the documents as exhibits, which were all legally brought on records, 22. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that from a perusal of the statements of the witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding, it can not be said that the charges have been proved as against the petitioner. It may be mentioned that, during the departmental proceeding, the complainant herself turned hostile. She, however, when confronted with her earlier statement accepted the signature appearing in Annexure-E/1 to be her signature and further accepted that the some was in the pen of her son Ranbir. In evidence, two witnesses stated hat they had seen Shanti Devi living with the petitioner. 23. This Court. in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot embark upon an enquiry with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the departmental proceeding only in the event if it is found that the enquiry report was perverse only in so far as the evidences even if accepted to be correct in their entirety the same did not make out any case as against the delinquent officer or that no reasonable man would come to the finding as has been arrived at by the Enquiring Officer. Such is not the case here. 24. A part from the other evidences available on the record, as noticed hereinbefore, there had been categorical admission of the petitioner himself. Such is not the case here. 24. A part from the other evidences available on the record, as noticed hereinbefore, there had been categorical admission of the petitioner himself. In terms of Sec. 58 of the Evidence Act, an admission made by a person is the best evidence to be relied upon as against the petitioner making such statement In that view of the matter, in my opinion, it was for the Enquiring Officer and consequently the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner has been able to explain away his earlier admission or not but, as noticed hereinbefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself there is no doubt that the previous statement made by the petitioner in the preliminary enquiry can be used as evidence as against him. This aspect of the matter has also been considered recently by the two Division Benches of this Court. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Girija Nandan Singh V/s. The State of Bihar 1987 PUR 95 and M/s Instrumentation Ltd V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. 1988 PLJR 145 per S.C Mookherji, J. 25. Taking into consideration, thus, all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that no case for interference has been made out. This application, therefore, having no merit, is dismissed but, in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.