Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar SinghversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The removal order is lawful because the petitioner’s admission of a second marriage makes him ineligible for service under Rule 11(2) of the SSB Rules, 2009.
Summary
The petitioner, a constable in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), was served a show‑cause notice alleging that he had contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive. He replied to the notice, admitting that he had indeed married a second woman, Soni Kumari. On the basis of this admission, the Commandant of the 35th Battalion issued an order on 26 September 2016 removing the petitioner from service under Rule 26 of the SSB Rules, 2009. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quash of the removal order and reinstatement, contending that the second marriage was with the consent of his first wife and therefore permissible. The court examined Rule 11(2) of the SSB Rules, 2009, which disqualifies any person who contracts a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse from retention in service, and found the rule applicable despite the consent. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ application, upholding the removal order.
Issues considered
- Whether the removal order issued under the SSB Rules, 2009 is valid in view of the petitioner's admission of a second marriage.
- Whether a second marriage, even with the first spouse's consent, renders a SSB personnel ineligible for service under Rule 11(2) of the SSB Rules, 2009.
- Whether the writ petition seeking quash of the removal order and reinstatement can be entertained.
Subjects
- second marriage
- service eligibility
- Sashastra Seema Bal
- Rule 11
- removal from service
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7163 of 2017
======================================================
Deepak Kumar Singh Son of Baleshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Biraul,
P.S.- Khajauli, Distt. Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi.
2. Director General S.S.B. East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
3. Dy. Inspector General S.S.B Head Quarter, Muzaffarpur.
4. Commandant 35th Bn S.S.B. Raj Nag Nagar, District- Madhubani.
5. Assistant Commandant S.S.B. 35th Bn Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“1. A) To quash the order
dated 26.09.16 issued under the
signature of Commandant 35 Bn
S.S.B. Rajanagar. District Madhubani
a copy of which is annexed as
Annexure-'3' to this writ application
by which he has removed the
Petitioner from the post of constable
CT/G.D under rule 26 of the S.S.B.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7163 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
2/4
rules 2009.
B) To direct the
Respondent to re-instate the the
petitioner at the post of CT/GD in
35th Bn S.S.B Rajanagar District-
Madhubani and to pay regular salary
from the date of removal.
c) To pass any such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
thinks fit and proper.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was
discharging his duty as constable, general duty in the Sashastra
Seema Bal, an enquiry was started against him with respect to
the fact as to whether he had contracted a second marriage
during the lifetime of his first spouse.
4. The enquiry lead to issuance of a show cause
notice dated 5.8.2016 to which the petitioner replied on
24.8.2016.
5. The respondents came out with an order dated
26.9.2016 (Annexure-3) inflicting the punishment of removal
from service on the petitioner with immediate effect. It is this
order which the petitioner has challenged in the instant writ
application.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7163 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
3/4
petitioner that the order impugned is illegal and not sustainable
for the reason that he had contracted the marriage with the
second wife after obtaining consent of his first wife. It was for
the reason that the petitioner had only two daughters from the
first wife. As such, it is prayed that the order impugned be set
aside and the writ application be allowed.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. Besides opposing the writ
application on merits, learned counsel submits that pursuant to
having contracted the second marriage, the same renders the
petitioner ineligible in terms of Rule 11 of the Sashastra Seema
Bal Rules, 2009. It is further submitted that in fact in his reply
to the show cause notice, the petitioner accepted entering into a
second marriage during the lifetime of his first spouse.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
9. From the contents of the writ petition, it
transpires that on having been served with a show cause notice
with respect to the fact as to whether the petitioner had entered
into and contracted a second marriage during the lifetime of his
first spouse, the petitioner filed his reply on 24.8.2016, a copy
of which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.7163 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
4/4
application. In his reply, the petitioner accepted entering into a
second marriage with one Soni Kumari.
10. Taking into consideration the admission by the
petitioner with respect to him having contracted a second
marriage together with the ineligibility provided under Rule
11(2) of the SSB Rules, 2009 which provides that any person
subject to the Act who contracts or enters into a second marriage
during the lifetime of his first spouse shall render himself
ineligible for retention in service and may be dismissed,
removed or retired from service on ground on unsustainability,
the Court finds no illegality in the order impugned and no merit
in the instant application.
11. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.2.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…