Police Personnel's Live-In Relationship With Woman Other Than Wife Violates Service Rules: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a police constable who, despite being married, was found to have been in a live-in relationship with another woman.

The Bench of Justice SN Pathak ruled that although the police official was acquitted in the rape case lodged by his live-in partner, this did not justify overturning his dismissal from service.

“It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed,” the Court observed. 

Following the rape case lodged by his live-in partner, the police official was suspended in June 2018 and a regular departmental proceeding was initiated. Despite denying the charges, the constable was dismissed from service.

Challenging the dismissal, his Counsel argued that the constable could only be dismissed for bigamy, and that a live-in relationship did not qualify. The Jharkhand Service Code provision relevant to the case only concerned the solemnization of a second marriage, which, according to the counsel, meant the dismissal should be set aside.

On the contrary, the Counsel for the State countered that the constable was found to be in an “illicit relationship” despite being already married, violating the Jharkhand Service Code and Jharkhand Police Manual. The Counsel argued that the petitioner, being a member of the Force was not expected to violate the Rules, in particular Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code, read with Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual.

The Court observed that the constable admitted to having an “illicit relationship” with a woman other than his wife. “Petitioner himself admits that he was in a live-in relationship with xxx. The admission of the petitioner that he was in a live-in relationship with xxx, who was a lady other than his wife, becomes a sufficient reason for termination/dismissal in view of Rule 23 of the Service Code read with Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual,” the Court noted in its Order dated June 19. 

The Bench held, "The punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority was tested up to the highest authority of the State which could not be questioned here sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when no folly in the departmental proceeding is pointed out."

Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the penalty order passed against the constable (petitioner). "As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned penalty order dated 14.03.2017 affirmed upto the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, which requires no interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed," the Court held. 

Cause Title: X v. The State of Jharkhand 

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Satish Prasad

Respondent: Advocate Gaurav Abhishek

Click here to read/download the Order