JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the respondent. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 11-12-2014, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, on conclusion of a Departmental Proceeding instituted against him. 3. The petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was serving as a Constable in the 152 Bn. of CRPF, was issued with a memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014, instituting a Departmental Proceeding against him, basing on 03 (three) Article of Charges. The petitioner submitted his written statement against the said Memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014. However, the same being found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding and on conclusion of the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 12-10-2014. A copy of the said enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner, who had submitted his representation, thereon, on 16-11-2014. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the enquiry report, basing on the materials coming on record, as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner to the enquiry report, proceeded vide order dated 11-12-2014, to impose the penalty of dismissal of service upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the imposition of the said penalty vide order dated 11-12-2014, instituted an appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority vide his appeal memo dated 16-11-2014. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, vide order dated 13-03-2015, on considering the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the contemporaneous records, proceeded to reject the appeal so preferred by the petitioner, thereby, affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the Article of Charge No. 1 levels against the petitioner an allegation of having entered into a relationship with one L. Nandita Singha, by introducing himself as Devasish Singha and for the purpose had tampered his identity card, to be perverse. Mr. 4. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the Article of Charge No. 1 levels against the petitioner an allegation of having entered into a relationship with one L. Nandita Singha, by introducing himself as Devasish Singha and for the purpose had tampered his identity card, to be perverse. Mr. Nath submits that the said charge was not established during the enquiry and no material was brought on record that the petitioner had forged his identity card to project himself as Devasish Singha, in place of Ujjal Singha, for the purpose of entering into a relationship followed by marriage with said L. Nandita Singha. He submits that the respondent authorities had not proceeded to carry out any forensic examination of the purported forged documents allegedly furnished by the petitioner to said L. Nandita Singha and accordingly, the conclusions reached that the petitioner has forged the said document not being established, the said charge framed against the petitioner would have to be held to have not been established. 5. With regard to the Article of Charge No. 2, it is submitted that the same pertains to the allegation levelled against the petitioner of having contracted a second marriage with one Premabati Singha, without divorcing his first wife L. Nandita Singha. Mr. Nath submits that the marriage with L. Nandita Singha not having been established to having been contracted and it also not being established that the said marriage was so performed by following the rituals so mandated for the purpose, the marriage contracted by the petitioner with Premabati Singha cannot be said to be a second marriage entered into by him and accordingly, the allegation of bigamy so levelled against him would not be sustainable. Accordingly, he submits that the first marriage of the petitioner not being established to have been so performed by following the prevalent customs of the community to which the parties belong, the allegation that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage with Premabati Singha is clearly perverse and the said article of charge also cannot be held to be established against the petitioner. 6. With regard to 03rd (third) Articles of Charge, Mr. Nath has submitted that the same pertains to an allegation levelled against the petitioner of having suppressed the fact of a case being lodged against him before the Udarband Police Station. Mr. 6. With regard to 03rd (third) Articles of Charge, Mr. Nath has submitted that the same pertains to an allegation levelled against the petitioner of having suppressed the fact of a case being lodged against him before the Udarband Police Station. Mr. Nath submits that the said case was so registered on an FIR lodged by said L. Nandita Singha. He further submits that the said case being false to the core of it and having been instituted on a misunderstanding arising was not informed by him to his authorities. Mr. Nath has submitted that the said case, however, was subsequently, set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Silchar, vide judgment and order dated 30-05-2015, in Crl. Revision No. 55/2014. Accordingly, he submits that basing on the said charge, no penalty would be permissible to be imposed upon the petitioner, herein. 7. In the above premises, Mr. Nath submits that the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner being so imposed without there being any admissible evidence to base the conclusions drawn by the authorities that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014 was established, the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner, would mandate interference from this Court. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents submits that on receipt of a complaint from L. Nandita Singha, of the petitioner entering into a marriage with her by projecting himself to be Devasish Singha and thereby, cheating her, a court of enquiry was ordered by the Commandant, 152 Bn. CRPF on 14-04-2014 and the Deputy Commandant of the Battalion was appointed as Presiding Officer to enquire into the facts. It is submitted that during the court of enquiry, it was established that the petitioner, while in service in the force had made a fake identity card No. 101664, on his own and had inserted, therein, his coloured photograph and changed his name to Devasish Singha. A copy of the said identity card was also given to L. Nandita Singha. He submits that basing on the findings of the Court of Enquiry, a Departmental Proceeding having been directed to be held against the petitioner, the Memorandum of Charge dated 29-05-2014, came to be issued to the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. A copy of the said identity card was also given to L. Nandita Singha. He submits that basing on the findings of the Court of Enquiry, a Departmental Proceeding having been directed to be held against the petitioner, the Memorandum of Charge dated 29-05-2014, came to be issued to the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Medhi that in the enquiry so held the charges levelled against the petitioner stood established and the Enquiry Officer basing on the materials coming on record, in his enquiry report had held the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been so established. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, on receipt of the said enquiry report along with the representation submitted, thereon, by the petitioner, had proceeded, vide the impugned order dated 11-12-2014, to appreciate the materials coming on record and having found that the petitioner to be not fit to be retained in the force, had proceed to impose upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. He submits that the Appellate Authority had on an appeal being preferred by the petitioner proceeded, vide order dated 13-03-2015, to reject the appeal after examining the contemporaneous records. Mr. Medhi submits that although in the enquiry, the petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him, the petitioner had miserably failed to elicit any material in his support, from the witnesses who had deposed in the enquiry, including the complainant L. Nandita Singha. Accordingly, Mr. Medhi submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner having been established in the enquiry, the penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upon the petitioner vide order dated 11-12-2014, being proportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the same would not mandate interference from this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 10. Vide memorandum of charge dated 29-05-2014, the following Articles of Charge were framed against the petitioner. “MOD-1 (Artcle – 1) That the Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF GD while in service of CRPF has made a fake service identity card No. 101664 of his own and inserted therein coloured photo. In identity card his name has been changed as Debasish Singha and changed other description in the identity card. “MOD-1 (Artcle – 1) That the Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF GD while in service of CRPF has made a fake service identity card No. 101664 of his own and inserted therein coloured photo. In identity card his name has been changed as Debasish Singha and changed other description in the identity card. The employee in the fake identity card has changed his name as CT/GD Debasish Singha and one photocopy of the fake identity card has given to one girl of locality Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Fulbabu Singha, Vill- Chesri, PO & PS- Udharband, Cachar, Assam. Introducing him as Debasish Singha he engaged in love affairs with Smti. L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha since November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he married her at Silchar Court. On 16/12/2013 detached relation with that girl. No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF has tempered Government document, as such being a member of Force he has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is punishable offence. MOD-2 (Article-2) That, No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF serving in CRPF has introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he has married L Nandita Singha at Silchar Court. The employee without divorce to his first wife L. Nandita Singha has married Smti Premabati Singha, daughter of (L) Kh Bir Chandra Singha of Badripar, P.O- Machpara, P.S. Silchar on 17.12.2013 at Silchar Court. As per Rule 15 of CRPF Rules, 1955 no member of the Force whose wife is alive shall marry for second time without permission of Government also shall not marry for second time which is not permissible under the Rule. But the employee has married for second time without divorce to first wife which is a condemnable offence. As such No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF being a member of Force has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is a punishable offence. MOD-3 (Article-3) That No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha, A/152 Bn CRPF serving in CRPF has introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sn Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he has married L. Nandita Singha at Silchar Court. MOD-3 (Article-3) That No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha, A/152 Bn CRPF serving in CRPF has introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sn Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he has married L. Nandita Singha at Silchar Court. He has cheated Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singh and Smti L. Nandia Singha has lodged a case on 02.01.2014 No. 03/2014 U/S 493/417/323/506/34 IPC at Udharband P.S, Dist- Cachar, Assam. The employee has not informed about the case to the department. He has concealed about the case to the department and for this being a member of Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Rules, 1949 which is a punishable offence.” 11. A perusal of the article of charge No. 1 would reveal that it was alleged against the petitioner that he had made a fake identity card bearing No. 101664 on his own and had inserted therein a coloured photograph. In the identity card so made the petitioner had changed his name as Devasish Singha and also changed other descriptions in the identity card. It is further alleged that a photocopy of the said fake identity card was also given to L. Nandita Singha and he had entered into a marriage with her on 15-07-2013, after being in a relationship with her since November, 2010. The said allegation was considered in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and basing on the materials coming on record, the Enquiry Officer had drawn the following conclusions:- “On the basis of the statements of witnesses and documents produced, the allegation No. 1 that the Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF GD while in service of CRPF has made a fake service identity card No. 101664 of his own and inserted therein coloured photocopy. In identity card his name has been changed as Debasish Singha and changed other description in the identity card. The employee in the fake identity card has changed his name as CT/GD Debasish Singha and one photocopy of the fake identity card has given to one girl of his locality Smti L Nandita Singha, daughter of Fulbabu Singha, Vill-Chesri, P.O & P.S- Udharband, Cachar, Assam. Introducing him as Debasish Singha he engaged in love affairs with Smti. The employee in the fake identity card has changed his name as CT/GD Debasish Singha and one photocopy of the fake identity card has given to one girl of his locality Smti L Nandita Singha, daughter of Fulbabu Singha, Vill-Chesri, P.O & P.S- Udharband, Cachar, Assam. Introducing him as Debasish Singha he engaged in love affairs with Smti. L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha since November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he married her at Silchar Court. On 16/12/2013 detached relation with that girl. No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF has tempered Government document, as such being a member of Force he has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is punishable offence has been Fully proved.” 12. Smti. L. Nandita Singha had deposed in the said enquiry as witness No. 2. A perusal of the deposition of said L. Nandita Singha, would go to reveal that she had deposed that the petitioner had projected himself as Devasish Singha and basing on the said projection made, they had entered into a relationship and the petitioner had assured that he would marry her. A perusal of the deposition made by L. Nandita Singha, during her cross-examination by the petitioner in the enquiry would reveal that she had projected that the identity card, in question, was given to her after her marriage with the petitioner which was solemnized on October, 2013. She had further deposed that the identity card was necessary for registration of their marriage as she was having her identity card, but did not have the identity card of the petitioner. The said evidence coming on record clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner, herein, had submitted one identity card to L. Nandita Singha and in the said identity card he had projected his name as Devasish Singha. The said identity card had identified the petitioner as a member of the CRPF. Accordingly, it is apparent that the petitioner had submitted a forged the identity card of his own and therein, had changed his name and other particulars. Accordingly, the allegation levelled against the petitioner in article of charge No. 1 of having tempered with Government document, is found to have been established in the enquiry. Accordingly, it is apparent that the petitioner had submitted a forged the identity card of his own and therein, had changed his name and other particulars. Accordingly, the allegation levelled against the petitioner in article of charge No. 1 of having tempered with Government document, is found to have been established in the enquiry. The petitioner during his cross-examination of witness No. 2, had not even suggested that the identity card as produced by the said witnesses, was not given to her by him. 13. With regard to the article of charge No. 2, it is seen that the same levels an allegation against the petitioner that he having introduced himself as Devasish Singha to L. Nandita Singha and being in a relationship with her since November, 2010, had married her on 15-07-2013. It is further alleged that after the marriage contracted by the petitioner with L. Nandita Singha, he had without divorcing her, entered into a second marriage with Premabati Singha on 17-12-2013. During her cross-examination by the petitioner, L. Nandita Singha had submitted that they were married at Hanuman Shiva Temple at Tulapatti, Silchar and only both of them were present at the relevant point of time. She further deposed that after the marriage she had gone to her house. L. Nandita Singha further deposed during her such cross-examination by the petitioner that an affidavit was sworn with regard to the marriage entered into by her with the petitioner in the court and at the relevant point of time only both of them and an advocate was present. The affidavit stated to have been executed in the matter between the petitioner and the said L. Nandita Singha was placed on record and on a perusal of the same, it is revealed that therein, it was on oath stated that the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha were living as husband and wife for a long time and had decided to get married and accordingly, they both married each other on 14-07-2013 observing all formalities at the Shiv Temple and living as husband and wife. The said disclosure made from the affidavit so sworn by the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha was not disputed by the petitioner. The said disclosure made from the affidavit so sworn by the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha was not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner had not raised any question to L. Nandita Singha with regard to execution of the said affidavit, other than only asking her that at the time of signing of the affidavit who were present. The said affidavit having come on record and the same having demonstrated that the petitioner had married L. Nandita Singha in the Hanuman Shiv Temple at Tulapatti, Silchar, by observing all required formalities, the petitioner is found to have entered into a proper marriage with said L. Nandita Singha. Premabati Singha, i.e. the person whom the petitioner had married for the second time, during her deposition, had submitted that the petitioner had married her on 15-12-2013 in a Shiv Temple at Silchar. It is further brought on record that after the said marriage was so solemnized, the petitioner and Premabati Singha, had sworn affidavit in the similar manner, as was sworn between the petitioner and L. Nandita Singha on 28-04-2014 and therein, also it was stipulated that the affidavit is required to declare the marriage solemnized between them on 15-12-2013. Accordingly, considering the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner for entering into the marriages firstly with L. Nandita Singha in a temple by observing all formalities and thereafter, executing an affidavit before Notary Public and thereafter, entering into a marriage with Premabati Singha in a Shiv Temple and thereafter, executing a similar affidavit, the petitioner is found to have deliberately entered into marriages with two different ladies and accordingly, the charge levelled against the petitioner of having married for the second time without receiving permission from the Government is found to have been established. The Enquiry Officer with regard to the article of charge No. 2 had drawn the following conclusions basing on the materials coming on record:- “On the basis of evidence produced and statement of witnesses the allegation in MOD No. 2 that Force No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF serving in CRIPF Mas introduced himself as Debasish Singha to Smti L. Nandita Singha, daughter of Sri Fulbabu Singha and made love affair with her since November, 2010 and on 15.07.2013 he has married L. Nandita Singha at Silchar Court. The employee without divorce to his first wife L Nandita Singha has married Smti Premabati Singha, daughter of (L) Kh Bir Chandra Singha of Badripar, P.O- Machpara, P.S- Silchar on 17.12.2013 at Silchar Court. As per Rule 15 of CRPF Rules, 1955 no member of the Force whose wife is alive shall marry for second time without permission of Government also shall not marry for second time which is not permissible under the Rule. But the employee has married for second time without divorce to first wife which is a condemnable offence. As such No. 031522257 CT/GD Ujjal Singha A/152 Bn CRPF being a member of Force has violated Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 which is a punishable offence is fully PROVED” 14. This Court on perusal of the said conclusions of the Enquiry Officer finds that the same is so based on the materials coming on record and accordingly, the said conclusions so drawn by the Enquiry Officer would not mandate interference from this Court. 15. With regard to the Article of Charge No. 3, this Court finds that the same pertains to non-disclosure before the departmental authority about the case instituted against the petitioner by L. Nandita Singha. It is true that the said case was subsequently set aside on a technicality by a Revisional Court. However, on a consideration of the Article of Charge No. 3, it is revealed that the same alleges non-disclosure of the case instituted against the petitioner and not about the merits of the said case. The allegation has been established in the enquiry and accordingly, the conclusions drawn in this connection by the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the said charge was established against the petitioner would not mandate interference from this Court. 16. In view of the conclusions drawn by this Court, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, having been found to have been established, condoning of such misconduct committed by the petitioner, who was a member of a disciplined force, and issuing directions for reinstatement of the petitioner in his service, would have an adverse effect on the overall image of the force and would also effect the public perception about the force, inasmuch as, a person who is found to be guilty of an offence like bigamy or of having cheated a lady, would now be permitted to continue as a member of such disciplined force. The same in the considered view of this Court would have a cascading effect on the overall moral and discipline of the force. Accordingly, for the established misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service, as imposed upon the petitioner is found to be proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the penalty of dismissal as imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 11-12-2014, would not mandate any interference. Consequently, the order dated 13-03-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, would also not mandate any interference. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.