JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved with order of Commandant 152 Battalion CRPF respondent No. 5 herein, bearing No. P.VIII-3/2007/CE-III dated 28th September 2007, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from services. He on strength of averments made in petition on hand seeks following relief: "(a) Writ of Certiorari, quashing impugned order bearing No. P. VIII-3/2007/CE-II dated 28th September 2007, passed by respondent No. 5; (b) Writ of Mandamus, commanding respondents to take petitioner back in service w.e.f. 28th September 2007 by revoking/recalling impugned order dated 28th September 2007; (c) Writ of Mandamus, commanding respondents not to fill up the post till the matter is finally disposed of by this Hon'ble Court as if he was in regular service in respondent department; (d) Writ of Mandamus, commanding respondents not to act upon over impugned order dated 28th September 2007, by releasing all monetary benefits in favour of petitioner to which he is entitled including sustenance allowance which are due to him under rules." Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Force in 1996. His wife Ms Naseema Begum, sometime in 2006, addressed a representation to respondent No. 5, stating therein that she was married to petitioner in December 1992 and three children are born out of wedlock; that their marital life ran smoothly till 20th May 2006, when petitioner married one Ms Razia and brought her as his second wife to his home. Mst Naseema Begum, further represented that petitioner, after contracting marriage with Ms Razia, was threatening her to leave his house along with children and that she is being forced to be burden on her old aged parents. Copy of representation was forwarded to superior officers of the Force. 2. Receipt of representation prompted respondent No. 5 to seek report from Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, touching grievance, set out in representation. Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, in turn entrusted matter to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters. The Officer conducted a brief enquiry into the matter, recorded statement of representational list and submitted his report to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, who in turn vide his letter No. CRB-26/06-1452 dated 7th February 2007, while confirming that Ms Naseema Begum was first wife of petitioner, reported that parties have amicably settled matter and Ms Naseema Begum is not more keen to pursue complaint. 3. 3. Respondent No. 5, notwithstanding report received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, decided to proceed against petitioner and accordingly issued show cause notice dated 12th February 2007 to petitioner, reminding him that he in violation of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, had contracted second marriage with Ms Razia, during subsistence of first marriage with Ms Naseema Begum, asked him to submit his explanation and show cause as to why disciplinary action in terms of Section 11 (1), CRPF Act read with Rule 15, CRPF Rules, 1955, should not be taken against him. 4. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. The stand taken was that second marriage was necessitated by continued ill health of Ms Naseema Begum and to ensure that because of her ill health, three children born out of wedlock were not exposed to any inconvenience. Petitioner maintained that once Ms Naseema Begum, realized that whatever was done by petitioner, was in her interest and in the interest of children, she decided not to pursue matter and made a statement before Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Kupwara. It was further stated that petitioner, after realizing that though it was permissible under Personal Law for him to contract second marriage, yet CRPF Rules required prior permission of competent authority to contract second marriage, divorced Ms Razia as was evident from affidavit sworn by her. Petitioner further stated that he had love and passion for his duty and was keen to serve the Force. 5. Respondents, notwithstanding explanation tendered, vide No. P.VIII-2/07-EC.II dated 16th March 2007, directed Departmental Enquiry against petitioner. Statements of witnesses were recorded and vide No. G.II.l/2007.OP dated 12th July 2007, petitioner asked to adduce evidence, if any, on 28th August 2007 at 1600 hours. Petitioner in his defence produced an affidavit sworn by his second wife Ms Razia, wherein she stated that she was divorced by petitioner and had been paid Rs. 20,000/- on account of dower and that petitioner had resumed marital relation with Ms Naseema Begum. 6. Enquiry Officer, on perusal of material collected during enquiry held charge of alleged misconduct proved against petitioner. Respondent No. 5, acting on enquiry report, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on petitioner with effect from 28th September 2007. Petitioner was held entitled to full gratuity and pension in terms of CCS Pension Rules 1972. 7. 6. Enquiry Officer, on perusal of material collected during enquiry held charge of alleged misconduct proved against petitioner. Respondent No. 5, acting on enquiry report, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on petitioner with effect from 28th September 2007. Petitioner was held entitled to full gratuity and pension in terms of CCS Pension Rules 1972. 7. Petitioner questions order No. P.VIII-3/2007/CE-II dated 28th September 2007 on the ground that enquiry officer and thereafter disciplinary authority did not follow procedure laid down under rules, and the order, therefore, is violative of CRPF Rules and mandate of Article 311, Constitution of India. It is pleaded that there was no material before respondent No. 5 to impose penalty in disregard of Rules of 1952; that allegation levelled does not amount to misconduct within meaning of the Rules. It is next pleaded that penalty imposed is excessive, unfair and disproportionate to misconduct alleged against petitioner. Respondents are said to have ignored unblemished service career of petitioner, spreading over period of 11 years and unjustifiably deprived petitioner of 23 years' service. 8. Heard and considered. 9. Rule 15, CRPF Rules, 1955, prohibits second marriage by member of the Force during subsistence of first marriage without permission of Government. Rule needs to be noticed. It reads: "15. Plural marriages.--No Member of the Force who has 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." 10. Violation of Rule, therefore, would be misconduct within meaning of the Rules. Rule 27 empowers Commandant of Battalion to award, amongst others, punishment of compulsory retirement to a Non-Gazetted Officer. Punishment, however, is to be awarded after departmental enquiry. In the circumstances, there is no merit in plea that contract of second marriage without permission from competent authority, would not amount to misconduct and that punishment, awarded to petitioner, is not permissible under CRPF Rules. 11. This takes us to next limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner i.e. nature of departmental enquiry conducted against petitioner. Petitioner's case that departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules, is belied by the record. 11. This takes us to next limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner i.e. nature of departmental enquiry conducted against petitioner. Petitioner's case that departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules, is belied by the record. A closer look at the record made available by learned ASGI, would reveal that respondent No. 5, on receipt of representation from Ms Naseema Begum, got matter looked into by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, and it is only after allegations levelled in representation were prima facie substantiated that a show cause notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner was not only made aware of allegations levelled against him in representation filed by his wife Mst Naseema Begum - mother of three children, including a daughter, but respondent No. 5 decided to issue show cause notice, so as to provide him an opportunity to put forth his stand against allegations levelled in representation. Petitioner availed opportunity, granted to him, and submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice. 12. Petitioner's grievance as regards disregard of procedure laid down under Rules and that he was not given fair opportunity to defend himself, is to be examined in context of stand taken by petitioner and in his reply to show cause notice and all along thereafter till enquiry was concluded. It is important to notice that petitioner at no point of time disputed veracity of allegations levelled against him. He accepted that he had contracted second marriage with Ms Razia during subsistence of his marriage with Ms Naseema Begum, without permission of competent authority. He tried to justify the step taken on the ground that second marriage was contracted to provide helping hand to his ailing wife and for welfare of children, who were neglected because of ill health of their mother. Petitioner, in essence, accepted that he had violated the Rules and was guilty of misconduct. 13. Petitioner, after he realised that misconduct committed by him, may cost him his service, rushed to divorce his second wife. He now made an attempt to avoid punishment, likely to be imposed on him on the ground that any punishment imposed will render him jobless and deprive him and his family of the only source of sustenance. 13. Petitioner, after he realised that misconduct committed by him, may cost him his service, rushed to divorce his second wife. He now made an attempt to avoid punishment, likely to be imposed on him on the ground that any punishment imposed will render him jobless and deprive him and his family of the only source of sustenance. Having regard to frank and fair admission of alleged misconduct made by petitioner, respondents could have without going further in the matter, imposed penalty warranted in facts and circumstances of case. Respondents, notwithstanding admission so made, decided to record evidence and to give an opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Respondents, therefore, cannot be held to have violated the Rules or mandate of Article 311, Constitution of India, while proceeding against petitioner. 14. Contention, that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to show cause against proposed punishment and to convince authorities that punishment was excessive or disproportionate and that it was not required to be imposed in view of facts and circumstances of case, does not sound convincing. From perusal of record it transpires that petitioner did make an effort to convince respondents that there were mitigating circumstances in his favour and a lenient view was warranted. 15. The plea was examined by competent authority and it is the case set up by petitioner to persuade competent authority to grant lesser punishment that respondent No. 5, instead of dismissal or removal from service, decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. It needs to be pointed out that respondent No. 5 in terms of Rule 27, CRPF Rules, was competent to order petitioner's dismissal or removal from service. Respondent No. 5, on other hand, took notice of fact that petitioner has served the Force for more than 10 years and had to discharge responsibilities back home, and therefore, for the reasons discussed in impugned order imposed punishment of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal or removal from service. It must not escape out attention that petitioner by contracting second marriage, did not only violate Rule 15, CRPF Rules, 1955, but made life of both Ms Naseema Begum and Ms Razia miserable. It must not escape out attention that petitioner by contracting second marriage, did not only violate Rule 15, CRPF Rules, 1955, but made life of both Ms Naseema Begum and Ms Razia miserable. Petitioner in first place shocked Ms Naseema Begum-mother of three children, including 13 years old daughter, by contracting second marriage during subsistence of his marriage with Ms Naseema Begum and an attempt to throw her out with children from marital home, and thereafter let down Ms Razia, presumably an unmarried girl, whom he married and thereafter divorced in an attempt to save his service. Punishment imposed, therefore, cannot be held disproportionate or one that would shock conscience of the Court. 16. Looking from all angles, petition does not disclose any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Record be returned to counsel for respondents.