Delhi HC orders reinstatement of CRPF employee, says dismissal throws family into disarray

New Delhi, Oct 18 (PTI) Dismissal of an employee from service is an extreme step as it throws their family into disarray and brings their source of livelihood to an ignominious and abrupt halt, the Delhi High Court has observed.

It said dismissal is not a step to be taken routinely, especially when the allegation against the employee does not involve an element of moral turpitude or impropriety.

The high court made the observation while setting aside the dismissal of a CRPF employee and ordering his forthwith reinstatement on October 13.

"Dismissal from service is an extreme step. It throws the family of the employee into disarray and brings to an ignominious and abrupt halt the family's source of livelihood.

"It is not, therefore, a step to be routinely taken, especially where the allegation against the employee does not involve an element of moral turpitude or financial or like impropriety," a bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said in the order.

The employee was dismissed from service by the authorities on three charges -- marrying another woman during the subsistence of his first marriage, solemnising the marriage without prior intimation to the employer and availing child care allowance for taking care of the daughter of his second wife even before formally adopting her.

The petitioner, represented by advocate K K Sharma, pleaded before the disciplinary authority that his first marriage was validly dissolved by execution of a dissolution deed on stamp paper in the presence of the village panchayat.

The high court noted that this assertion on facts has been noted in the dismissal order and has not been held to be incorrect. The disciplinary authority has not doubted the correctness or proof of this assertion, it said.

"In these circumstances, it is clear, at the very least, that the petitioner's marriage with ... (second wife) was a bona fide marriage as the earlier marriage with ... (first wife), at least in the perception of the petitioner, stood dissolved by way of a dissolution deed on stamp paper executed in the presence of the panchayat of the village.

"To dismiss the petitioner from service in such circumstances would, in our considered opinion, be unjustified," the bench said.

The court made it clear that it was examining this aspect solely from the point of view of whether the employee's dismissal from service was justified.

"...for that limited purpose, we do not deem it necessary to embark into a detailed factual or legal inquiry into whether, strictly speaking in law, the first marriage had been validly or not validly dissolved," it said, adding that dismissing the petitioner from service would result in a travesty of justice.

The court said given the fact that the girl was actually the daughter of the petitioner's second wife, it cannot be said that the man invalidly availed child care allowance, even if the formal adoption of the girl by him took place at a later point in time.

It said the petitioner would be entitled to be treated as having continued in service and would be entitled to all benefits following continuity in service, including seniority and the benefits of pay fixation.

However, he would not be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period that he has not served the respondents. PTI SKV DIV DIV