Allahabad High Court: Government Servants Can Face Major Penalty for Bigamous Marriage Without Permission

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a government servant who enters into a second marriage without obtaining the government’s permission, while the first marriage is still legally valid, can face a major penalty. The court held that the punishment for violating Rule 29(1) and (2) of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and is within the discretion of the appointing authority.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam observed that Rule 29(3), which earlier prescribed withholding increments for three years as the minimum punishment for violating the rules relating to bigamous marriages, was deleted in 1976. Since the provision has not been restored through any subsequent amendment, a government servant cannot claim that only a minor penalty can be imposed for such misconduct.

The court made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a woman constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police who challenged a charge sheet issued against her on March 22, 2025. The charge sheet was issued under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

According to the charges, the woman constable married Durgesh Kumar Gautam after joining the police service without obtaining a divorce from her first husband. The department alleged that her actions violated Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956. She approached the High Court challenging the charge sheet and the initiation of departmental proceedings under the provisions applicable to major penalties.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules lays down the procedure for imposing a major penalty. It was further argued that Rule 29(3) of the 1956 Rules prescribed withholding increments for three years for violations of sub-rules (1) and (2), which was a minor penalty. On this basis, the petitioner contended that the departmental proceedings could, at most, have been initiated under Rule 14(2) of the 1991 Rules, which deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties.

The petitioner’s counsel also relied on earlier Allahabad High Court judgments in Kamaluddin Khan v. State of U.P., Prabhat Bhatnagar v. State of U.P. and Aneeta Yadav v. State of U.P. to support the argument that only a minor penalty could be imposed for the alleged misconduct.

However, the state government’s standing counsel argued that Rule 29(3) had been deleted through the U.P. Government Servant Conduct (4th Amendment) Rules, 1976. The state submitted that the judgments cited by the petitioner had been delivered without considering the deletion of this provision and, therefore, could not be relied upon to claim that only a minor penalty was permissible.

After examining the history of Rule 29, the High Court noted that sub-rule (2) was inserted in 1956, while sub-rule (3) was added in 1964. However, the rule was substituted in 1976, leaving only sub-rules (1) and (2). The court observed that no subsequent amendment restoring sub-rule (3) had been brought to its notice.

The court also found that the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner had proceeded on the basis of the unamended provision without considering the effect of the 1976 amendment. Consequently, those decisions could not be treated as binding precedents on the issue in question.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held that the deletion of Rule 29(3) meant that there was no legal basis for restricting the punishment for such misconduct to the withholding of three increments. The appointing authority has the discretion to decide the appropriate punishment, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The High Court further clarified that initiating departmental proceedings under Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules does not automatically mean that a major penalty must be imposed. Although the provision prescribes the procedure for proceedings involving a major penalty, the disciplinary authority is not legally bound to impose a major penalty in every case initiated under it.

On these grounds, the court held that the petitioner’s challenge to the charge sheet was misconceived. The ruling clarifies that a government servant accused of entering into a bigamous marriage in violation of the applicable conduct rules may face a major penalty, and the choice of punishment rests with the appointing authority in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case.

• Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)