Supreme Court: CISF constable rightly dismissed for marrying again while first wife alive

The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal from service of a Central Industrial Security Force constable for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, holding that violation of service rules cannot be condoned merely because the consequences appear harsh.

The bench allowed the Union government's appeal and set aside the judgments of the single judge and division bench of the High Court, which had held that dismissal from service was too severe a penalty and had directed the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser punishment.

The Supreme Court held that under the jurisdiction exercised by High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, courts do not function as appellate authorities over disciplinary decisions. Judicial review is limited to examining the legality of the process and cannot extend to substituting or modifying the punishment unless there is substantial non-compliance with statutory rules or procedural safeguards.

The court observed that inconvenience or unpleasant consequences arising from violation of law cannot dilute the mandate of the law itself. It reiterated that when a statutory rule prescribes specific penal consequences, such provisions must be strictly construed and enforced in accordance with their clear language.

The respondent, Pranab Kumar Nath, was appointed as a constable in the CISF on July 22, 2006. A complaint was submitted by his wife, Chandana Nath, alleging that during his posting with the 3rd NDRF Battalion at Mundali, Odisha, he had contracted a second marriage with another woman on March 14, 2016, while his first marriage was still subsisting.

Following disciplinary proceedings, the constable was dismissed from service. His appeal and revision were also rejected by the competent authorities, affirming the punishment of dismissal.

The respondent challenged the dismissal before the High Court. A single judge held that removal from service, rather than dismissal, would be a more appropriate penalty and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Union government challenged this decision before the division bench, which agreed with the single judge and held that while contracting a second marriage amounted to indiscipline, it did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal.

The Union government thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001, which has been framed under Section 22 of the CISF Act, 1968. The Rule categorically provides that a person having a living spouse shall not enter into or contract a marriage with another person, and violation of this condition attracts penal consequences.

The court held that such service rules are founded on the institutional requirement of maintaining high standards of discipline, integrity, and public confidence within uniformed forces. It clarified that these provisions do not amount to moral judgment but are service conditions that an employer is entitled to prescribe, provided they are not arbitrary or unconstitutional.

The bench emphasized that where the language of a rule is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot read down its scope or dilute its effect. It also reiterated the settled principle that ambiguity in penal provisions must ordinarily be interpreted in favour of the person sought to be penalized, but found that no such ambiguity existed in Rule 18(b).

The court relied on earlier precedent holding that judicial interference with disciplinary penalties is permissible only where the decision is illogical, suffers from procedural impropriety, or is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court. In the present case, the court found no procedural infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings and no basis to hold the punishment disproportionate.

The Supreme Court held that both the single judge and the division bench of the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by substituting their own view on the appropriate punishment in place of the disciplinary authority.

Invoking the legal maxim dura lex sed lex, meaning the law is hard, but it is the law, the court held that strict enforcement of service rules could not be undermined due to perceived harshness of the outcome.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments and restored the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.

The judgment reinforces that government employees in disciplined forces must adhere strictly to service rules and that courts will not interfere with proportionate punishments imposed for clear violations, even if consequences appear severe.

Case details: Union of India and Others vs Pranab Kumar Nath, decided by a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi on December 19, 2025.