Introduction:
The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a police constable involved in a live-in relationship with another woman while still married. The Court ruled that such behavior is inappropriate for a police officer and violates service condition rules. The decision was handed down by Justice SN Pathak, who emphasized the distinction between criminal proceedings and departmental actions, asserting that the latter’s parameters justified the dismissal despite the constable’s acquittal in a criminal case.
The petitioner, serving as a Constable at Churchu Police Station in Hazaribagh district, faced allegations of maintaining a live-in relationship with another woman while being married with two children. This relationship led to the woman’s pregnancy and subsequent allegations of torture, culminating in a Panchayat intervention and a police complaint. An FIR was filed against the petitioner under sections 341, 323, 376, 313, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Following an inquiry and verification of facts involving the petitioner’s first wife, he was suspended from service on June 4, 2018. A formal departmental proceeding ensued after the petitioner denied all charges. The inquiry confirmed the allegations, resulting in his dismissal. Subsequent appeals and revisions were unsuccessful, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Satish Prasad, representing the petitioner, argued that the dismissal was based on allegations not specified in the charge memo, particularly bigamy. He contended that the charge sheet did not accuse the petitioner of bigamy, thus invalidating the dismissal orders. Prasad further argued that the relationship with the complainant did not constitute marriage, emphasizing that the petitioner had denied any such status.
Prasad cited Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which pertains to the validation of a second marriage, urging the Court to quash the orders. He also highlighted the petitioner’s acquittal in a criminal case filed by the complainant on the same allegations in February 2023.
The State, represented by the Government Pleader, countered that the petitioner’s conduct violated service rules. The Court noted that the constable had admitted to an extramarital relationship, which constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal under Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. The Court emphasized that the disciplinary action was justified and upheld by the highest state authority.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice SN Pathak ruled that the petitioner’s behavior was unbecoming of a police officer, violating the rules governing his service conditions. The Court distinguished between the parameters of criminal cases and departmental proceedings, asserting that the latter justified the dismissal despite the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case.
Key Points of the Judgment:
Unbecoming Conduct:
The Court emphasized that maintaining a live-in relationship while being married is inappropriate for a police officer and violates service rules.
Departmental Proceedings Valid:
The Court asserted that the dismissal was based on a regular departmental proceeding, distinct from the criminal case parameters. The disciplinary action was upheld by the highest authority of the State.
Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code:
The Court noted that the petitioner’s admission to an extramarital relationship justified dismissal under Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code read with Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual.
No Grounds for Quashing Dismissal:
The Court found no basis to interfere with the dismissal order, affirming that the disciplinary process was conducted properly.