ORDER : Deepak Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11-12-2013 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed from services as well as the order dated 29-01-2014 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined service as Constable with the Border Security Force (BSF) on 23-10-1993. Prior to his appointment in the Force, the petitioner was married to one Fatima Begum as per Muslim law and this marriage was conducted probably in the year 1987. It is not disputed that in October, 2011 the petitioner contracted a second marriage without seeking permission of the authority. Thereafter, a complaint was received from his first wife that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage and that he had a daughter from the second marriage. A Court of inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the inquiry report the petitioner was found guilty and ordered to be dismissed from service. 3. Even before us, it is not disputed that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Mohammedan governed by Muslim Personal Law and, therefore, as per his personal law he is entitled to enter into a second marriage. It is also urged that he entered into the second marriage with the consent of his first wife. 4. Reference has been made to Rule 7 of the BSF Rules, 1969 both in the order of dismissal as well as in the writ petition. We are clearly of the view that Rule 7 does not apply to the facts of the present case. Rule 7 is the first rule in Chapter II of the rules the heading of which is “RECRUITMENT”. Rule 7 reads as follows:- “7. We are clearly of the view that Rule 7 does not apply to the facts of the present case. Rule 7 is the first rule in Chapter II of the rules the heading of which is “RECRUITMENT”. Rule 7 reads as follows:- “7. Disqualification.—(1) No person— (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who having a spouse, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment into Force: Provided that the Central Government may if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operating of this rule.” A bare perusal of the rule shows that a person who has entered into a second marriage while his first spouse is living shall not be eligible for appointment in the Force though the Central Government if satisfied may permit such a person to be appointed. This rule relates to the initial appointment and it has no connection with termination of service. 5. As far as contracting a second marriage during service is concerned, that is governed by Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which are applicable to the BSF also and this rule reads as follows:- “21. Restrictions regarding marriages- (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person: Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in Clause (1) or Clause (2), if it is satisfied that- (a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds for so doing. (3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than of India Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.” Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 clearly provides that no Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person. (3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than of India Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.” Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 clearly provides that no Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person. The proviso to this rule like the proviso to Rule 7 of the BSF Rules also empowers the Central Government to permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract a second marriage, if it is satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law and there are grounds for entering into the second marriage. 6. The main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since second marriage is permissible under the Muslim Personal Law and furthermore, since the Government has the power to grant such permission, the conduct of the petitioner could not be treated to be misconduct and, therefore, the services could not be terminated. We are not in agreement with this submission. In case of any Government employee who has a spouse living and such person wants to enter into a second marriage which is permitted under his personal law, he must approach the Central Government or the authorities concerned with a prayer in which it should be clearly spelt out that as per his personal law he is entitled to enter into a second marriage and secondly, that such second marriage is necessary for certain reasons. It is for the Government to decide whether permission should be granted or not. It is not for the employee to decide himself without approaching the Government that he is entitled to get married a second time. This by itself is misconduct and contracting a second marriage without the permission of the Central Government, even if permissible under the personal law, clearly amounts to misconduct and, therefore, the BSF was entitled to take disciplinary action in terms of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules. 7. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. We must keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had already rendered 18 years of service before he contracted into the second marriage. He was terminated after he had completed almost 20 years of service. We must keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had already rendered 18 years of service before he contracted into the second marriage. He was terminated after he had completed almost 20 years of service. In the reply, there is no allegation that there was any other complaint against the petitioner. No doubt, his act of marrying a second time without seeking permission of the Government is misconduct but can it be said that this misconduct is so severe that he should be dismissed from service which would mean that he would virtually be entitled to no pensionary or other benefits. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that he was not aware of the provisions of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. Ignorance of law is no excuse but at the same time, we cannot ourselves ignore the hard truth that a large number of employees are not aware of the details of the rules. Whatever be the case, the petitioner is a person who served the BSF for about 20 years and the allegation against him is that he misconducted himself by contracting a second marriage while his first spouse was living. This is not a criminal offence of bigamy because the personal law permits such conduct. Misconduct is the technical misconduct in not seeking permission of the authorities concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that though the misconduct of the petitioner is serious enough to warrant his non-continuation in service but it is not so serious as to warrant forfeiture of all his service benefits. 9. It is true that normally the writ Court does not interfere in matters of punishment and does not impose a punishment by itself but we are clearly of the view that this is one of those glaring cases where the punishment is totally disproportionate to the misconduct. 10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the interest of justice will be served if punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed upon the petitioner instead of punishment of dismissal from service. The impugned orders are modified accordingly. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been compulsorily retired from the date of his dismissal from service. 11. The impugned orders are modified accordingly. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been compulsorily retired from the date of his dismissal from service. 11. All the retiral and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall be released to him within 6(six) months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the entire amounts w.e.f. 01.5.2016. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.