The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable, Pranab Kumar Nath, who contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive, violating Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The court emphasized that the High Court erred in exercising its power of judicial review and interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable, Pranab Kumar Nath, who contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive, violating Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The court emphasized that the High Court erred in exercising its power of judicial review and interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The constable had married another woman in 2016, leading to a disciplinary action and eventual dismissal from service in 2017. The High Court had directed a lesser penalty, citing the punishment as “much too harsh”, but the Supreme Court restored the dismissal order, citing “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) 😊.
The apex court noted that the constable’s actions could impact operational efficacy and mental stability, and reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is limited, not akin to an appellate court review. Would you like to know more about the CISF Rules or judicial review scope?
[22/12, 10:10] Meta AI: The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable, Pranab Kumar Nath, who contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive, violating Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The court emphasized that the High Court erred in exercising its power of judicial review and interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The constable had married another woman in 2016, leading to a disciplinary action and eventual dismissal from service in 2017. The High Court had directed a lesser penalty, citing the punishment as “much too harsh”, but the Supreme Court restored the dismissal order, citing “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) 😊.
The apex court noted that the constable’s actions could impact operational efficacy and mental stability, and reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is limited, not akin to an appellate court review. Would you like to know more about the CISF Rules or judicial review scope?
[22/12, 10:16] Meta AI: ✅ *Key Points:*
– Supreme Court upheld dismissal of CISF constable for contracting second marriage
– Violated Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules, 2001
– High Court erred in exercising judicial review
– “Dura lex sed lex” – law is hard, but it is the law
– Judicial review under Article 226 is limited
