Agartala: The Tripura High Court, in a recent judgment, modified the punishment imposed on a TSR personnel accused of contracting a second marriage without prior permission.
The Court directed that he be deemed compulsorily retired instead of dismissed from service, while allowing him retiral and pensionary benefits.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Dutta Purkayastha, passed the order while allowing a writ appeal filed by the state challenging a judgment dated May 16, 2025, of a single judge in WP(C) No. 64 of 2024, which had set aside disciplinary, appellate, and revisional orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The writ petitioner, a rifleman of the 13th Battalion TSR posted at Kanchanpur in North Tripura, was subjected to departmental proceedings following a complaint lodged in May 2019 alleging that he had contracted a second marriage without informing or obtaining consent from his first wife.
Based on the complaint, charges were framed under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983, and departmental proceedings were initiated under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The inquiry officer found the charges proved.
A provisional order of removal from service was issued on August 23, 2021, which was later modified to compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority on October 2, 2021. The petitioner’s appeal and revision were subsequently rejected by the competent authorities.
Challenging the proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court, following which the single judge set aside the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional orders and remanded the matter to the appointing authority.
In appeal, the state contended that the petitioner had violated Rule 21 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988, by contracting a second marriage without prior permission, and that adequate opportunity was provided during the departmental proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the punishment was disproportionate, citing his service of over 20 years and his family circumstances.
The Division Bench observed that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry proceedings and was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, including access to documents and the option to appoint a defence assistant, which he declined.
The court held that the petitioner had indeed violated Rule 21 by entering into a second marriage without obtaining prior permission from the government. However, it noted that such conduct, though amounting to misconduct, was not a criminal offence in view of the personal law applicable to him.
Referring to an earlier judgment of the High Court in a similar case, the bench held that while the misconduct warranted discontinuation from service, it was not so grave as to justify dismissal resulting in forfeiture of all service benefits.
Accordingly, the court set aside the single judge’s order and held that the petitioner would be deemed to have been compulsorily retired from the date of his dismissal from service.
The bench directed that all retiral and pensionary benefits be released to the petitioner within six months, failing which the amount would carry interest at 12 per cent per annum from April 1, 2026.
With these directions, the writ appeal was disposed of.