Second Marriage While First Is Alive Is Grave Misconduct, Not Private Affair: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“In a Uniformed Force, Personal Conduct That Undermines Discipline Cannot Be Shielded Behind Private Justifications”, In a stern endorsement of institutional discipline in uniformed services, the Andhra Pradesh High Court restored the order of compulsory retirement issued against a CISF constable who contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, categorically held that “conscious bigamous conduct” by a member of a disciplined force constitutes grave misconduct, and the penalty imposed was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

Reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had earlier directed the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser penalty, the Bench ruled:

“When the violation is serious and proved, sympathy towards dependents cannot dilute the gravity of misconduct. In certain situations involving serious violations of law, sympathy shall have no role.”

“Judicial Review Cannot Fix the Penalty — That Discretion Belongs to the Disciplinary Authority”

The case revolved around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Suri Babu, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who married a fellow lady constable while his first marriage with one K. Nagalakshmi was still subsisting. Following a full-fledged inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement in 2017, which was upheld by both the appellate and revisional authorities.

However, in March 2024, the learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the penalty, citing sympathy and proportionality, and remanded the matter with directions to impose a lesser punishment. The CISF challenged this direction in appeal, contending that the High Court cannot cap the penalty, nor can it interfere in disciplinary discretion absent perversity or procedural illegality.

Proven Bigamy Amid Service Rules Violations

As per departmental findings, the respondent constable married Ms. Prameela Pativada, a Mahila Constable, without judicially dissolving his existing marriage with Ms. K. Nagalakshmi, thereby violating Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001.

He was charged under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules for contracting a second marriage and suppressing the same, and was eventually awarded compulsory retirement with 2/3rd gratuity by order dated January 11, 2017. His appeals were rejected, prompting the writ petition.

The respondent contended that “family pressure” led him to marry Ms. Nagalakshmi after he had already developed a relationship with Ms. Prameela, and that he later secured a mutual divorce from his first wife. The defence argued that his personal life issues should not affect his service career and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.

Can Courts Dictate the Penalty?

The pivotal question before the Division Bench was whether the High Court, even while remanding a disciplinary matter, could fix a ceiling or specific direction on the penalty to be imposed, and whether contracting a second marriage—even under claimed emotional circumstances—constitutes a serious enough misconduct to justify compulsory retirement.

In answering this, the Bench emphatically ruled:

“The punishment of compulsory retirement ordered for opting conscious bigamous marriage by the writ petitioner is not disproportionate.”

The Court referred to a catena of judgments, including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372, to reiterate that judicial review over disciplinary penalties is narrow.

The Bench observed:

“The power to impose appropriate penalty is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. Interference is warranted only when the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. That threshold is not met here.”

Second Marriage While First Marriage Exists — A Continuing Wrong

The Court firmly held that second marriage during the lifetime of a spouse without divorce is a continuing offence, not merely a lapse in personal judgment. Rejecting the excuse that family pressure drove the petitioner into the first marriage, the Court noted:

“The so-called first marriage with K. Nagalakshmi is claimed to have ended in divorce, but her statement during inquiry shows otherwise. She categorically denied any mutual separation.”

The Court also referred to precedents like Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2025 Supreme (Online)(Del) 5110) and J. Bernard Philip Leo v. Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records (2024) 3 SCC 224, both of which upheld disciplinary action for bigamy in public service.

The Bench emphasized:

“Being a member of a disciplined force, the petitioner was under a statutory obligation not to contract a second marriage without lawful dissolution of the first. The misconduct is not merely of private nature—it undermines the discipline and integrity of the force.”

Rebutting the Single Judge: No Power to Cap Penalty Upon Remand

The High Court took particular exception to the direction of the learned Single Judge, who while remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority, had ordered that “any punishment other than compulsory retirement” be imposed.

The Division Bench clarified:

“Judicial review is not akin to appellate jurisdiction. The Court may remit the matter but cannot fix a cap on the quantum of punishment. That is an encroachment upon the statutory discretion of the disciplinary authority.”

Relying on para 19 of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the Bench held:

“Even when punishment appears disproportionate, the correct course is to remit the matter to the authority without imposing a particular penalty.”

The Court also stressed that compulsory retirement is not equivalent to dismissal or removal, and thus does not attract the same degree of harshness. In fact, the Bench observed that the disciplinary authority had shown leniency by not opting for dismissal, despite proven grave misconduct.

Discipline Over Sympathy

Rejecting the plea that the penalty was excessive and unjust, the Court made it unequivocally clear:

“When violations are proved and disciplinary action is taken after due process, the Court’s concern must be with fairness, not sympathy. Every penalty will affect dependents—but that is no ground to dilute the misconduct.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restored the disciplinary orders imposing compulsory retirement, reiterating the principle that personal conduct impacting institutional credibility in public service cannot be brushed aside as a private matter.

Date of Decision: November 7, 2025