The Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the dismissal of an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was terminated for contracting a second marriage without the consent of the competent authorities, observing that the dismissal violated his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the officer had an unblemished service record and the second marriage was valid under Muslim personal law, performed with the consent of his first wife.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma emphasized the officer’s role as the sole breadwinner for his family, stating, "The deprivation of livelihood to the petitioner and his family members would be violative of Article 21."

The Court recognized the officer's patriotic service in the Indian Air Force and considered his termination "harsh and disproportionate."

"Paramountly, when therebys the fundamental right to life endowed upon the present petitioner, and, also his family members would becomes breached. Moreover, also when excepting the above, the petitioner has rendered an unblemished service in the Indian Air Force. In consequence, irrespective of the purported vices of delay and laches, the prima dona factum of the impugned order being harsh and arbitrary, besides its suffering from gross non-application of mind, thus constrains this Court to allow the writ petition," the Court said.

The case involved a Muslim IAF officer who entered a second marriage during his first marriage in 2012 without seeking prior permission from the Air Force as required by service regulations. A Court of Inquiry was initiated following his disclosure of the second marriage, resulting in a show cause notice and eventually, his dismissal from service. In his defense, the officer admitted to not obtaining permission but argued that his religion permits up to four marriages, provided he could maintain all spouses equally. He also claimed ignorance of the relevant regulations.

While the plea was filed in 2021, the Court chose not to let the statute of limitations prevent justice, allowing the case to proceed on its merits. The Bench criticized the Air Force for failing to follow protocol, noting that the officer's commanding officer should have assessed whether disciplinary action was necessary but had instead recommended dismissal without sufficient reasoning.

"The second marriage, being valid under Muslim law, and the absence of any complaint from the first wife implied her consent," the Court added.

Concluding that the dismissal was excessively severe and failed to consider extenuating circumstances, the Court set aside the dismissal order, allowing the officer to be reinstated.

Cause Title: X v. Union of India and Others [Neutral Citation No. 2024: PHHC: 130024-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate R.S. Panghal

Respondent: Advocate Bharat Bhushan Sharma (Senior Panel Counsel)

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Sureshwar ThakurJustice Sudeepti SharmaPunjab & Haryana High Court

Sukriti Mishra