JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 01.06.2015 made in SWP No. 1490/2007 wherein the appellant has prayed to quash the order dated 28.09.2007, compulsorily retiring him from service and for direction to take him back in service with effect from 28.09.2007 with all monetary benefits. The learned Single Judge having noticed the contract of marriage of the appellant for the second timer while the first wife is alive without getting permission from the department, up held the order of compulsory retirement against which this appeal is filed. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:-- (a) The appellant was enrolled as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 1996. The appellant married one Naseema Begum in the year 1992 and three children are born out of the wedlock. During the subsistence of the first marriage, on 20.05.2006 the appellant married one Ms. Razia and brought her as his second wife to his house. The first wife addressed a complaint before the 5th respondent in 2006 stating that the appellant has contracted the second marriage and was threatening her to leave his house along with the children on the ground that she is a burden. On receipt of the representation/complaint the 5th respondent sought for a report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara who in turn entrusted the matter to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Headquarters. The said officer conducted a brief enquiry into the matter, recorded the statement of the first wife/complainant and submitted the report to the SSP, who by report dated 07.02.2007 confirmed that Ms. Naseema Begum is the first wife, however, she has stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter and she is not interested in pursuing the complaint. (b) The appellant having contracted the second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage, the respondents decided to proceed against him as he has violated Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 which prohibits second marriage 4 without permission from the Government. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.02.2007 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why disciplinary action in terms of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 should not be taken against him. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 22.02.2007 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why disciplinary action in terms of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 should not be taken against him. The appellant submitted his explanation and took the stand that the second marriage was necessitated by continued ill health of his first wife and to take care of the three children born out of the wedlock. He has also pleaded that the complaint having decided not to pursue the matter, the matter should be dropped. He has also claimed that even though second marriage is permissible under Personal Law, he having not obtained prior permission as per Rules to contract second marriage, he divorced the second wife. The explanation was considered and the same having not been found satisfactory, departmental enquiry was ordered. (c) The departmental enquiry was conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. On 12.07.2007 the appellant was directed to adduce his evidence if any. On 28.08.2007 the appellant filed a defence statement along with an affidavit sworn by his second wife stating that she was divorced by the appellant and had been paid Rs. 20,000/- on account of dower and the appellant has resumed the marital relation with his first wife. (d) The enquiry office, noticing the admission made by the appellant that without getting prior permission he contracted the second marriage, held that the charges leveled against the appellant were proved. Based on the enquiry report the 5th respondent imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 28.09.2007 by specifically stating that appellant is entitled to full gratuity and pension in terms of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. 2. The said order was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, by stating that the enquiry officer failed to follow the procedures as mandated by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the punishment imposed being a major punishment, the same is disproportionate to the misconduct, having regard to the fact that the appellant rendered 11 years of unblemished record of service. 3. 3. The said writ petition was opposed by the respondents by stating that the fact that second marriage was contracted by the appellant during the subsistence of his first marriage, without getting prior permission having not been disputed, the violation of the CRPF Rules, namely; Rule 15 as apparent and considering the past service of 11 years rendered by the appellant, the department thought it fit to issue the order of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal or removal from service so that appellant will be in a position to get full gratuity and pension in terms of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and there is no illegality in the order. 4. The learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions in the light of Rule position and up held the order of compulsory retirement against which this appeal is preferred. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Personal Law permits contracting of second marriage and therefore the charge alleged against the appellant is not so serious warranting compulsory retirement and it is a matter coming within minor delinquency for which the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement imposed is disproportionate. Learned counsel also submitted that the show cause notice was issued for violation of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 which empowers the authority to impose only minor punishments, like censure, withholding of increment etc. and only if notice was issued for charge of a heinous offence, major punishment can be imposed. 6. In answer to the said submissions the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 11 not only contemplates certain punishments but also gives a discretion to impose additional punishments such as suspension or dismissal apart from minor punishments. He has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 (Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat), upholding the punishment imposed in exercise of that Section. Learned counsel also submitted that appellant having admitted his second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, the violation of Rule is apparent for which proceedings were initiated and the Disciplinary Authority thought that imposing punishment of compulsory retirement will meet the ends of justice and the same is not disproportionate to the gravity of the Charge. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant violated Rule 15 of the CRPF Rules, which prohibits second marriage of a member of the force during subsistence of his first marriage without permission from the Government. The said Rule reads as follows:-- "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." 9. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that personal law of the appellant permits contracting of the second marriage, however, the appellant has contracted the second marriage without permission from the Government. Thus the misconduct namely plural marriage is clearly established. It is also the case of the appellant that after the proceedings were initiated, he divorced the second wife by paying dower. The said divorce will not have effect in initiating proceedings against the appellant and imposing punishment. The said rule prohibiting second marriage without obtaining permission even if personal law permits, is not under challenge. Even otherwise it is only an enabling provision to approach the Government to get permission to conduct the second marriage. The learned Single Judge has gone into the entire issue and dismissed the writ petition. 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in the above referred decision in Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat considered the implication of Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and has held thus:-- 5. A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with minor punishment as compared to the major punishments prescribed in the preceding section. It lays down that the Commandant or any other authority or officer, as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the Act, award any one or more of the punishments to any member of the force who is found guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of his duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force. According to the High Court the only punishments which can be awarded under this Section are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. In our opinion, the interpretation is not correct, because the section says that these punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. 6. The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal', appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be awarded. 7. It may be noted that Section 9 of the Act mentions serious or heinous offences and also prescribes penalty which may be awarded for them. Section 10 deals with less heinous offences and clause (m) thereof shows that absence of a member of the force without leave or without sufficient cause or overstay without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less heinous offence and for that also a sentence of imprisonment is provided. It is, therefore, clear that Section 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmental inquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10. 11. Thus the contention raised by the appellant, stating that show cause notice having been issued in terms of Section 11(1) of the Act, the order of compulsory retirement is not proper, has no substance as the issue is already answered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above referred to decision. The appellant having served for more than 11 years, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view and imposed the order of compulsory retirement instead of removing him from service. If he is removed from service he ' can go for any other employment, however, his entire past service will be obliterated. Hence the punishment imposed cannot be treated as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, particularly when the appellant was serving in a disciplined force. If he is removed from service he ' can go for any other employment, however, his entire past service will be obliterated. Hence the punishment imposed cannot be treated as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, particularly when the appellant was serving in a disciplined force. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) (1) SCC 302 (State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh) has held that an act of indiscipline by a member of the disciplined force needs to be dealt with sternly. The same view is reiterated in the decision reported in (2003) (3) SCC 309 (Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors). 12. In the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 (Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that a person working in a sensitive department must adhere to code of moral values. In paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 it is held thus:-- "19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. 20. The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service. That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. These aspects have been discussed at quite length by this Court in several decisions including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Om Kumar and others v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 , Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another, (2007) 4 SCC 669 , Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others, (2009) 15 SCC 620 and the recent one in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply (supra)." 13. In fact in the above judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement and ordering re-instatement till normal date of retirement with back wages and monitory benefits. Applying the said judgments to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the punishment imposed being compulsory retirement not outrageous, shocking the conscious of this Court, the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.