C.A.V. ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Imphal (Manipur), whereby, punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. Order of the appellate authority dated 12.7.2006, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the order of punishment as well as the order of the revisional authority i.e. Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi, dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition against the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is also under challenge. 2. On the allegation that during the subsistence of the petitioner’s marriage with Ranju Singh, he contracted second marriage with a constable in Central Reserve Police Force, which is a misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint made by his wife Ranju Singh. It was also alleged against him that he prepared a forged document to make out a case that his marriage with Ranju Singh stood dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. There were altogether four charges framed against the petitioner. All revolved around his conduct of marrying another lady during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. 3. It appears from the pleadings of the writ application that neither cause of action, leading to the filing of the present application has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor Offices of any of the respondents are situate within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This writ application could have been dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction but since no preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents to this effect in the counter affidavit or in course of oral submission, I proceed to adjudicate upon the matter particularly, as it has remained pending for nearly seven years before this Court. 4. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the departmental enquiry submitted his report, holding that the charges levelled against him stood proved on the basis of evidence on record. The disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Imphal vide his order dated 16.3.2006 imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of his dismissal from service. 4. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the departmental enquiry submitted his report, holding that the charges levelled against him stood proved on the basis of evidence on record. The disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Imphal vide his order dated 16.3.2006 imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of his dismissal from service. The petitioner’s appeal and revision petition were also dismissed by orders dated 12.6.2007, 12.7.2006 and 20.3.2007 which are under challenge in the present writ application. 5. From the pleadings of the writ application, it appears that it is not the case of the petitioner that there was any infirmity or procedural lapse in course of the departmental proceeding. Only plea which has been taken in the writ application is that the petitioner’s wife, said Ranju Singh sent a petition before the Inquiry Officer through registered post on 25.1.2006 to the effect that she had no complaint against her husband and she had made the complaint against the husband out of her wrong advice. It has further been stated that said Ranju Singh has also stated on affidavit that she wanted to withdraw her complaint and the complaint was ill advised. The said affidavit is said to have been faxed to the Disciplinary authority on 8.3.2006. Further plea of the petitioner as taken in the writ application is that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate/revisional authority considered the petitioner’s explanation/defence/points and they imposed and affirmed the order of punishment without any basis. 6. I have perused the inquiry report. From the Inquiry report, it appears that there were ample evidence adduced in course of the disciplinary proceeding that the petitioner had contracted second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. From the report of the Inquiry Officer it would appear that there were oral as well as documentary evidence on record in support of the fact that the petitioner had contracted second marriage with a constable of the same Force. The said Constable Sunita Upadhyay was also dismissed from service on the same charge. It appears from Annexure-8 of the writ application that said Sunita Upadhyay was reinstated in service and a proceeding afresh has been initiated against her for the same charge. 7. The findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be without any basis. The said Constable Sunita Upadhyay was also dismissed from service on the same charge. It appears from Annexure-8 of the writ application that said Sunita Upadhyay was reinstated in service and a proceeding afresh has been initiated against her for the same charge. 7. The findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be without any basis. From the report of the Inquiry Officer it appears that he has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and after analyzing and assessing such evidence recorded the finding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment, agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer is also well reasoned and has been passed after taking into account and discussing the evidence on record. I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the appellate authority as well as revisional authority as their orders also show application of mind before rejecting the petitioner’s appeal/revision. 8. From the report of the Inquiry Officer, it appears that there were ample evidence on record to prove the charge against the petitioner that he contracted second marriage during the subsistence of the earlier marriage, at least on the standard of the preponderance of probabilities. 9. The impugned action of the respondents need no interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.