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

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

There was adequate material on record to justify the finding of misconduct—contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage without government permission—under Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The punishment of removal was not shockingly disproportionate. Rule 29(1) is not violative of Article 25 since polygamy is not an integral part of religion, and the State may legislate social reforms, including monogamy, within the ambit of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Khursheed Ahmad Khan; Respondents: State of U.P. & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Government Servant Conduct Rules, Bigamy/polygamy, Freedom of Religion (article 25), Disciplinary Proceedings, Removal From Service
Service Law Constitutional Law Government Servant Conduct Rules Bigamy/polygamy Freedom of Religion (article 25) Disciplinary Proceedings Removal From Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khursheed Ahmad Khan

Appellant

State of U.P. & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal from service for contracting another marriage during the existence of the first marriage without government permission violates the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, and/or Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 is violative of Article 25 (freedom of religion).

Ratio Decidendi

There was adequate material on record to justify the finding of misconduct—contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage without government permission—under Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The punishment of removal was not shockingly disproportionate. Rule 29(1) is not violative of Article 25 since polygamy is not an integral part of religion, and the State may legislate social reforms, including monogamy, within the ambit of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed. No costs.