The Supreme Court on Thursday restored the dismissal of a CISF constable accused of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first, firmly reminding High Courts not to step into the shoes of disciplinary authorities. The bench made it clear that sympathy or hardship cannot dilute clear service rules, especially in a disciplined force.
Background
The case arose from the dismissal of Pranab Kumar Nath, a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who joined service in July 2006. Trouble began after his wife, Chandana Nath, lodged a written complaint in March 2016, alleging that Nath had married another woman while still legally married to her.
A departmental inquiry followed. The charge was straightforward: entering into a second marriage while having a living spouse, a clear violation of Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. A second charge related to neglect and ill-treatment of his wife and minor daughter.
After the inquiry officer submitted his report, the disciplinary authority dismissed Nath from service in July 2017. This decision was upheld in appeal and revision within the force. However, the Calcutta High Court’s single judge, and later a division bench, felt dismissal was “too harsh” and directed the authorities to impose a lesser penalty instead.
The Union of India challenged this interference before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court did not mince words while examining the High Court’s approach. The bench underlined that courts exercising writ jurisdiction are meant to review the decision-making process, not re-decide punishment like an appellate forum.
“The most extreme punishment may seem harsh, but courts cannot replace the employer’s judgment merely because they feel another view is possible,” the bench observed.
The judges explained that Rule 18 of the CISF Rules is not a moral lecture but a service condition meant to ensure discipline, mental stability, and public confidence in a uniformed force. Where rules clearly bar a second marriage without permission, there is little room for creative interpretation.
Referring to earlier precedents, the bench noted that unless a punishment is so disproportionate that it “shocks the conscience”, courts should stay their hands. Financial hardship or family difficulties, the court said, cannot override an unambiguous rule. Invoking the old maxim dura lex sed lex, the bench remarked that the law may appear harsh, but it remains the law.
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s judgments, the Supreme Court restored the dismissal order passed by the CISF disciplinary authority and affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities. The Union of India’s appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs, bringing the long-running service dispute to a close.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs Pranab Kumar Nath
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 15068 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18702 of 2023)
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Service Matter – Disciplinary Proceedings, CISF)
Decision Date: 19 December 2025