Married Policeman's Cohabitation 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 cohabiting relationship with another woman.

Dr Justice SN Pathak said although the police official was acquitted in the rape case lodged by his cohabiting partner, it cannot be a ground for quashing his dismissal from service.

“It is unbecoming of a police officer to have been in a cohabiting relationship with a woman other than his wife, and it amounts to a violation of rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner,” the Court said.

After the police official’s cohabiting partner lodged a rape case against him, he was suspended in June 2018, and regular departmental proceedings were 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 cohabiting relationship, his counsel added.

The relevant provision of the Jharkhand Service Code pertaining to the constable's case concerns the solemnisation of a second marriage. Therefore, the counsel contended that the constable's dismissal should be set aside.

However, the State argued 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, according to the State.

The Court noted that it was admitted that the police official was having an “illicit relationship” with a woman other than his wife.

“The petitioner himself admits that he was in a cohabiting relationship with xxx. The petitioner’s admission that he was cohabiting with xxx, who was a woman other than his wife, provides sufficient reason for termination/dismissal under 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).