Service discipline outweighs personal considerations: SC

THe sublime margaret court has underscored that serve train in armed and paramilitary unit forces must prevail over personal considerations, holding that acts in a staffer’s private life that risk domestic discord or divided responsibilities can undermine operational efficiency and mental stability.A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi held that courts must give primacy to the interests of service discipline while adjudicating challenges to punishments imposed on members of uniformed forces, and should not lightly interfere with disciplinary decisions unless they shock the conscience or suffer from procedural illegality.“It is generally understood that acts, whether in personal or professional life, if they involve the possibility of domestic discord, financial vulnerability or divided responsibilities, have the potential to adversely impact operational efficacy given mental/psychological stability is key,” the bench noted.The ruling came last week as the court allowed an appeal filed by the Union government and restored the dismissal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, setting aside orders of the Karnataka High Court that had termed the punishment “too harsh”.The man was appointed as a constable in the CISF in July 2006 -- a few months after his first marriage. The marriage, according to the record, was marked by disputes, and the couple eventually began living separately. They have a daughter born in April 2008. While posted with the National Disaster Response Force in Odisha, the constable married another woman in March 2016, during the subsistence of his first marriage. His first wife subsequently lodged a written complaint with the authorities.Following a disciplinary enquiry, the constable was dismissed from service in July 2017 for violating Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which disqualifies a person from appointment, or continuation in service, if they contract a second marriage while having a living spouse, unless exempted by the Central government under limited circumstances. The dismissal was upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities.However, the Karnataka High Court interfered with the punishment. A single judge held in 2022 that dismissal was disproportionate and remanded the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty. A division bench affirmed this view in 2023, observing that while contracting a second marriage amounted to indiscipline, it did not warrant the “extreme punishment” of dismissal, particularly considering the financial hardship it would cause to the employee and his family.Aggrieved, the Union government approached the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court faulted the high court for exceeding the permissible limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench reiterated that writ courts are not appellate authorities in disciplinary matters and cannot substitute their own views on punishment unless the decision is arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by procedural impropriety. The court emphasised that Rule 18 of the CISF Rules is founded on institutional requirements unique to uniformed forces.Clarifying that such rules do not amount to moral censure, the court said they constitute legitimate service conditions that an employer is entitled to prescribe in the interest of discipline, public confidence and integrity, so long as they are not arbitrary or unconstitutional.The bench also stressed that penal provisions in service rules must be strictly construed. In the present case, it found no ambiguity in the rule prohibiting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, and no allegation of procedural illegality in the disciplinary proceedings.Invoking the maxim dura lex sed lex – “the law is hard, but it is the law”, the court held that inconvenience or harsh consequences flowing from violation of service rules cannot dilute their application.Relying on a long line of precedents, the bench reiterated that courts cannot reappreciate evidence, reassess proportionality of punishment, or act as appellate authorities in disciplinary matters unless the punishment imposed is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience. In the present case, the court found that dismissal could not be termed shockingly disproportionate, given the clear breach of service rules governing members of the force.Setting aside the judgments of the single judge and the division bench of the high court, the Supreme Court restored the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities.