The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the primacy of service discipline in armed and paramilitary forces, holding that personal conduct, even in an employee’s private life, can legitimately attract strict disciplinary consequences if it undermines operational efficiency, mental stability, or institutional discipline. In a significant ruling, the court stressed that courts must exercise restraint while reviewing punishments imposed on members of uniformed forces and should not interfere unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by procedural illegality.

The judgment was delivered last week by a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi while allowing an appeal filed by the Union government. The court set aside orders of the Karnataka High Court and restored the dismissal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, in violation of service rules.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court observed that acts in a service member’s personal life that carry the risk of domestic discord, financial strain, or divided responsibilities have the potential to adversely affect operational efficacy. The bench emphasised that psychological and mental stability is crucial for personnel serving in uniformed forces, whose duties often involve high levels of stress, discipline, and public trust.

“It is generally understood that acts, whether in personal or professional life, if they involve the possibility of domestic discord, financial vulnerability or divided responsibilities, have the potential to adversely impact operational efficacy given mental/psychological stability is key,” the court noted.

Background of the case

The case arose from the dismissal of a CISF constable who was appointed to the force in July 2006, a few months after his first marriage. According to the record placed before the court, the marriage was troubled from the outset and marked by frequent disputes. The couple eventually began living separately. They have a daughter who was born in April 2008.

While serving with the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) in Odisha, the constable married another woman in March 2016, even though his first marriage had not been legally dissolved. His first wife subsequently lodged a written complaint with the CISF authorities, bringing the matter to official notice.

Following a departmental inquiry, the constable was dismissed from service in July 2017 for violating Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001. This rule disqualifies a person from appointment or continuation in service if they contract a second marriage while having a living spouse, unless a specific exemption is granted by the Central government under limited and exceptional circumstances. The dismissal order was upheld by both the appellate and revisional authorities within the force.

High Court intervention

The constable challenged his dismissal before the Karnataka High Court. In 2022, a single judge held that while contracting a second marriage amounted to indiscipline, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The court remanded the matter to the authorities for consideration of a lesser penalty.

In 2023, a division bench of the high court affirmed the single judge’s view. It observed that dismissal was an “extreme punishment” that was not warranted in the facts of the case, particularly in light of the financial hardship it would cause to the employee and his family. The high court’s intervention was premised on the idea that while misconduct had occurred, the penalty imposed was excessive.

Aggrieved by these orders, the Union government approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters concerning uniformed services.

Supreme Court’s reasoning

Allowing the government’s appeal, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the high court for overstepping its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench reiterated that writ courts are not appellate authorities in disciplinary proceedings and cannot substitute their own assessment of punishment for that of the competent authority.

The court emphasised that judicial review in such cases is limited to examining whether the disciplinary process was lawful, fair, and free from arbitrariness or perversity. Unless a punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court, or unless there is a clear violation of procedural safeguards, courts must refrain from interference.

The bench underlined that Rule 18 of the CISF Rules is not an arbitrary moral prescription but a service condition grounded in the institutional requirements of a disciplined, uniformed force. Such rules, the court said, are designed to preserve discipline, integrity, and public confidence, and to ensure that personnel are able to perform their duties without personal entanglements that may compromise focus or effectiveness.

Clarifying the nature of such service rules, the court observed that they do not amount to moral censure of an individual’s personal choices. Rather, they reflect legitimate conditions of service that an employer is entitled to impose, especially in forces tasked with sensitive and high-risk responsibilities.

Strict construction of service rules

The Supreme Court also stressed that penal provisions in service rules must be strictly construed. In the present case, the bench found no ambiguity in Rule 18, which clearly prohibits contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first without government permission. It further noted that there was no allegation of procedural illegality, bias, or unfairness in the disciplinary inquiry conducted against the constable.

Invoking the legal maxim dura lex sed lex—“the law is hard, but it is the law”—the court held that hardship or inconvenience resulting from the application of a valid service rule cannot be a ground to dilute or ignore it. Personal difficulties or adverse consequences, the court said, cannot override clearly framed service conditions that are uniformly applicable.

The bench relied on a long line of precedents to reiterate that courts cannot reappreciate evidence, reassess proportionality of punishment, or act as appellate forums in disciplinary matters involving uniformed services. Such interference is justified only in exceptional cases where the punishment imposed is outrageously disproportionate or where the decision-making process is fundamentally flawed.

In the present case, the court concluded that dismissal could not be characterised as shockingly disproportionate, given the clear and admitted breach of service rules governing members of the CISF.

Final outcome and wider implications

Setting aside the judgments of both the single judge and the division bench of the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court restored the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities.

The ruling reinforces a consistent judicial approach that accords special deference to disciplinary frameworks in armed and paramilitary forces. By underscoring that service discipline must outweigh personal considerations, the judgment signals that uniformed personnel are held to a higher standard of conduct, reflecting the unique nature of their duties and the institutional interests they serve.

At a broader level, the decision serves as a reminder that while courts play a vital role in protecting individual rights, their intervention in disciplinary matters—particularly in uniformed services—must remain circumscribed. In balancing personal hardship against institutional discipline, the Supreme Court has once again tilted firmly in favour of maintaining the integrity, cohesion, and operational readiness of forces entrusted with national security and public safety.