Meghalaya High Court: In an intra- Court appeal against a decision of the Single Judge, whereby the appellant/ rifleman’s dismissal from his service on ground of polygamy was upheld, the Division Bench of S. Vaidyanathan, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J. dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned decision, upholding rifleman’s dismissal from service.
In the matter at hand, the appellant was serving as a rifleman in Assam Rifles and was discharged from his service on the ground of polygamy and the order of discharge was upheld by the Single Judge. He was issued a show cause notice to inquire about his second marriage by the respondent- Assam Rifleman. After issuance of show cause notice and affording reasonable opportunity to him, a detailed inquiry was conducted. The appellant contended that he did not marry anyone when the first marriage was in subsistence and that the punishment imposed on him by way of dismissal from service by the respondent- Assam Rifles was disproportionate. The Single Judge’s finding in the impugned decision was that the appellant contracted a second marriage on 27-05-2014 during the subsistence of his first marriage and hence, there was no irregularity and infirmity in the proceedings.
The respondent-Assam Rifles contended that the appellant entered into a second marriage during the first wife’s lifetime without taking divorce. On completion of inquiry, it was concluded that the appellant was guilty of marrying a second time during the subsistence of his first marriage, which is in violation of Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.
Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 (‘Rules’) states that “any person subject to the Act, who contracts or enters into a second marriage during the lifetime 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.”
Regarding the appellant’s submission that there was no second marriage and that he was living in live-in relationship, the Court refused to accept the same and said that it was proved on record that the appellant was living with his second wife for a long period and cohabited with her under the same roof, which is sufficient to establish that there was a marriage. Thus, the Court held that the appellant’s second marriage was duly established and if the contention regarding live-in relationship with the second wife, was accepted, it would give a wrong signal to others that without solemnizing marriage, any male person can live with another lady and this will defeat the purpose of marriage and in that event, the sacrament of marriage itself would be lost.
Further, on perusal of Rule 10(2) of the Rules, the Court said that it is very clear that a person who enters a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse need not be retained in service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service. Further, the Court noted that the appellant is entitled to all pensionary benefits as admissible to him vide order dated 23-05-2018 issued by the Deputy Inspector General in terms of Assam Rifles Act, 2006 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules, discharging the appellant from service w.e.f. 23-05-2018, where it was mentioned that the appellant completed 14 years 11 months and 19 days of service after deducting non-qualifying service. Thus, the Court said that the appellant completed 15 years of service and an order was passed granting pensionary benefits.
Further, the Court relied on Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 159 wherein it was observed that it is absolutely mandatory on the part of the personnel in a disciplined force to maintain discipline of the highest order. The Court said that the present appellant acted in contravention to the established Rules, hence, could not seek for reinstatement, questioning his discharge from service. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal for no reason to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the Assam Rifles as confirmed by the Single Judge.
[Ganga Sagar Ram v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 693, decided on: 16-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.
For the respondents: R. Debnath, CGC