Married policeman's live-in relationship amounts to violation of service rules: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a police constable who was married but found to have been in a live-in relationship with another woman..Dr. Justice SN Pathak said though the police official was acquitted in the rape case lodged by this live-in partner, it cannot be a ground for quashing his dismissal from service.“It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed,” the Court said..After the police official’s live-in partner had lodged a rape case against him, he was suspended in June 2018 and a regular departmental proceeding was initiated. Though the official denied the charge, he was dismissed from service.Challenging the dismissal, his counsel told the Court that the constable could have been dismissed from service only if there was a charge of bigamy. In this case, the police officer was only in a live-in relationship, his counsel added.The Jharkhand Service Code provision relevant to the constable's case only concerned the solemnization of a second marriage. Therefore, the counsel contended that the constable's dismissal should be set aside. .However, the State said that the constable was found to be in an “illicit relationship” despite being already married. This was a violation of the Jharkhand Service Code and Jharkhand Police Manual, the State argued. The Court observed that it was admitted that the police official was having an “illicit relationship” with a woman other than his wife. “Petitioner himself admits that he was in live-in-relationship with xxx. The admission of the petitioner that he was living in- relationship with xxx, who was a lady other than his wife, becomes a sufficient reason for termination / dismissal in view of the Rule 23 of the Service Code read with Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual,” it said.The Court thus refused to interfere with the penalty order passed against the constable (petitioner)..Advocate Satish Prasad represented the petitioner. Advocate Gaurav Abhishek represented the State. .[Read Judgment]