Compulsory Retirement For Opting Conscious Bigamous Marriage Not Disproportionate Under CCS & CISF Rules: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a compulsory retirement for opting conscious bigamous marriage is not disproportionate under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (CCS Rules) and Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (CISF Rules).

The Court held thus in a Writ Appeal preferred by the Director General, CISF against the Order of the Single Judge.

A Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed, “The punishment of compulsory retirement ordered for opting conscious bigamous marriage by the writ petitioner is not disproportionate. … Generally while not interfering with the findings of the charge, interfering with the quantum of punishment is not advisable unless the quantum of punishment is shocking the conscience of the Court.”

The Bench reiterated that the second marriage during the lifetime of the first marriage without divorce would constitute a grave misconduct and being continuing wrong, penalty of removal need not be interfered.

Central Government Counsel (CGC) Venna Hemanth Kumar appeared on behalf of the Appellants, while Advocate P.S.P. Suresh Kumar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Case Background

The Respondent was charged of opting second marriage with a woman, while working as constable in CISF Department during the subsistence of his first marriage with one woman, against the CCS Rules and CISF Rules. The concerned authority passed orders imposing punishment of compulsory retirement with 2/3rd gratuity. Questioning the same, an Appeal was filed by the Respondent before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected. Revision preferred against the same was dismissed, confirming the orders. Thereafter, the Respondent was discharged from service by way of compulsory retirement. This was challenged via Writ Petition, seeking a relief of Writ of Certiorari.

It was claimed that such orders are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Single Judge was of the view that since the compulsory retirement has the effect of depriving the individual and his family, the punishment can be considered as excessive. Hence, matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh orders, imposing any penalty other than compulsory retirement on the Respondent. Therefore, an Appeal was filed against the said Order.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “When the Court opts for remanding the matter to disciplinary authority for imposing punishment, fixing a cap is not necessary, as the remedy against the punishment that may be imposed will be open to the charged officer. Instead of fixing a cap, the Court remanding the matter can by itself quantify the punishment.”

The Court said that the impugned Orders passed by the Single Judge are liable to be set aside confirming and restoring the Orders of the concerned authority and consequential orders.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s Orders.

Cause Title- The Director General, CISF & Ors. v. Kudipudi Suri Babu & Anr. (Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 48/2025)

Click here to read/download the Judgment