KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 09-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 1032 
KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1662 of 2015 
FEBRUARY 09, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 - r. 29(1) 
-
Validity of - Removal from service - Misconduct of 
C contracting another marriage during existence of the first 
marriage without pennission of the Government in violation 
of r. 29(1) - Upheld by the disciplinary authority and the High 
Court - Cha/fenge to, as also validity of the Conduct Rules 
as being violative of Art. 25 - Held: There is adequate 
o material in support of the charge against the appeflant -
Finding of violation of Conduct Rules not perverse or 
unreasonable -
Penalty of removal not shockingly 
disproportionate to the charge on established judicial 
parameters - Further, the Conduct Rufe not violative of Article 
E 25 since the religious faith is protected under Article 25 and 
not a practice which may run counter to public order, health 
or morality - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 25 - Service 
law. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is adequate material on record in 
support of the charge of misconduct against the 
appellant that he performed second marriage during the 
currency of the first marriage. In these circumstances, the 
G finding of violation of U.P. Government Servant Conduct 
Rules, 1956 cannot be held to be perverse or 
unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court. 
In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in 
holding that the penalty of removal cannot be held to be 
H 
1032 
KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. & 1033 
ORS. 
shockingly disproportionate to the charge on established 
A 
judicial parameters. [Para 11] [1033-A-D] 
1.2. The Conduct Rule in any manner could not be 
held to be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. What 
was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and 
8 
not a practice which may run counter to public order, 
health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of 
religion and monogamy was a reform within the power 
of the State under Article 25. [Paras 14 & 15] [1042-D; 
1037-F] 
Javed vs. State of Haryana 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 947: 
(2003) 8 sec 369 - relied on. 
Sar/a Mudgal vs. Union of India 1995 (1) Suppl. 
c 
SCR 250: (1995) 3 SCC 635 - referred to. 
D 
Case Law Reference : 
1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 250 Referred to 
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 947 Relied on 
Para 9 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL 
No(s). 1662 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2011 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No. 
36738 of 2008. 
Javed Ahmed, Firasat Ali, Ugranath Kumar, Ram Swarup 
Sharma for the Appellant. 
E 
F 
Aarohi Bhalla, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ram 
G 
Kishore Singh Yadav for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2. This appeal has been preferred against final judgment 
and order dated 1st March, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad in W.A. No.36738 of 2008. 
3. The question raised for consideration relates to validity 
of order dated 17th June, 2008 removing the appellant from 
8 
service for proved misconduct of contracting another marriage 
during existen_ce of the first marriage without permission of the 
Government in violation of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government 
Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short "the Conduct Rules") . 
c 
4. The appellant was employed as Irrigation Supervisor, 
Tubewell Division, Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar 
Pradesh and posted at IVth Sub Division, Hasanpur. He was 
served with a charge sheet alleging that during existence of first 
marriage with Sabina Begum, he married Anjum Begum and 
D thereby violated Rule 29 of the Conduct Rules and further 
alleging that he had given misleading information to the 
authorities that he had given divorce to Sabina Begum. The 
appellant denied the charge by stating that the complaint made 
by Shagufta Parveen, sister of his first wife was due to her 
E personal enmity. He had duly divorced his first wife, before 
performing the second marriage. However, he had made a 
statement to the contrary in enquiry proceedings initiated by the 
National Human Rights Commission due to fear of the police. 
It was only a mistake that he could not get the name of his first 
wife corrected in the service book. It is on record that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.