Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 78 (MEG)

Mritunjay Yadav v. Union of India

2022-04-08

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.01.2019, whereby the petitioner's dismissal order dated 20.12.2014, has only been converted to one of compulsory retirement from service. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner who was serving in the Assam Rifles as a Rifleman (GD) since 2003, was inflicted with the penalty of dismissal by the respondents who invoked Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifle Rules, 2010, to remove the petitioner from service, as he was found to have entered into second marriage while the first marriage was subsisting. 3. Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty inflicted is harsh, inasmuch as, he had entered into the second marriage with the second wife with the sole aim of having a child as he was issueless from the first marriage and that his action was at the behest and concurrence of his first wife. The learned counsel further submits that though Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 provides that a person who contracts into a second marriage during life time of his first spouse may be ineligible for retention in service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service, the proviso thereto has also provided that the person may be exempted provided the Central Govt. was satisfied that there was sufficient grounds for doing so. It is contended that, due to the peculiar facts of the case, such as, the fact that the second marriage was never registered and that the petitioner had entered into the same with a concurrence of his first wife, the respondents should have taken the same into consideration, while considering the punishment and in fact, should have given him the benefit as per the proviso to Section 10(2). 4. Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC for the respondents submits that as the punishment was imposed after duly completed departmental proceedings, on the basis of materials and evidence that had been tendered, the writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and examined the materials on record. A perusal of the proceedings which commenced from the show cause dated 30th June, 2014, to the Appellate order dated 16.01.2019, does not reveal that there has been any procedural irregularity or illegality. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and examined the materials on record. A perusal of the proceedings which commenced from the show cause dated 30th June, 2014, to the Appellate order dated 16.01.2019, does not reveal that there has been any procedural irregularity or illegality. For the sake of convenience, relevant findings as noted in the Appellate proceedings at paragraph - 4 and 9, are reproduced herein below which shows that the decision arrived was in accordance with law. '4. That the Appellant got married to K. Wanlih Konyak with the concurrence of his wife, Smt. Munni Yadav with a sole aim of having a child as he was issueless. The said contention of the Appellant is without any merit or substance when considered in light of the documents placed on record. As per the documentary evidence on record i.e. Exhibit-1 of the Court of Inquiry produced by the Appellant himself which is a Complaint dated 26 December 2010 submitted by Smt Munni Yadav addressed to HQ Nagaland Range (North) Assam Rifles, it is clearly evident that Smt Munni Yadav had never concurred for the Appellant's second marriage as contended. In the said complaint, Smt Munni Yadav has clearly brought out that her husband i.e. the Appellant had contracted second marriage without informing her. 9. That the second marriage of the Appellant was not subsisting at the time of the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The said contention of the Appellant is misconceived and therefore, deserves to be rejected being devoid of any merit or substance. As per evidence on record, the Appellant's first marriage with Smt Munni Yadav took place on 21 June 1998 and the Appellant got enrolled on 07 March 2003. Further, the Appellant married Smt K. Wanlih Konyak on 13 June 2007 during the life time of his spouse. Rule 10(2) of Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 clearly stipulates that 'Any person subject to the Act, who contracts or enters into a second marriage during the life time of his first spouse, shall render himself ineligible for retention in service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service on ground of unsuitability'. Also, the act of contracting plural marriage was committed on 13 June 2007 by the Appellant during the subsistence of first marriage. Also, the act of contracting plural marriage was committed on 13 June 2007 by the Appellant during the subsistence of first marriage. At that time, all factors constituting the misconduct were applicable i.e. his first wife was alive, he had not divorced his first wife and he had not sought permission of the Competent Authority. The fact of his second marriage has been accepted by the Appellant in the Court of Inquiry and reply to Show Cause Notice also. Therefore, the plea of the Appellant is not acceptable as per the Rules of Assam Rifles.' 6. Section 10 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 which prescribes the conditions of ineligibility for recruitment or retention of service on account of having more than one wife living is quoted herein below: '10. Ineligibility.- (1) No person, who has more than one wife living or who having a spouse living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of it taking place during the life time of such spouse, shall be eligible for appointment, enrolment, or employment in the Force. (2) Any person subject to the Act, who contracts or enters into a second marriage during the life time of his first spouse, shall render himself ineligible for retention in service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service on ground of unsuitability: Provided that the Central Government may if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for so ordering, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.' 7. A conjoint reading of the findings and Section 10(2) of the Rules clearly indicate that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is neither illegal or disproportionate to the misconduct. The petitioner as it appears from the materials was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and as such, all the procedural safeguards and legal requirements have been seen to have been complied with while dismissing the petitioner on the ground of having entered into a second marriage during the life time of his first wife. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.