A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a Head Constable of the U.P. Police and a government servant, has been dismissed from service on the charge of contracting a second marriage, even though the first spouse was living without permission of the competent authority. This case is not unique because of the point of law involved, but because of its peculiar facts where the petitioner has been assessed by the respondents to be the perpetrator of his own misfortunes. Interestingly enough, the petitioner basking in the glory of his cultural belief, set upon to have a second wife during the life time of the first one, only to realise after quarter of a century that he was guilty of misconduct as a government servant for having entered into this bigamous relationship.
(2.) This began with, as usual, by a complaint made by one Mr. Matamber Tiwari, who is a resident of the same village as the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that Mr. Matamber Tiwari was annoyed on account of a land transaction, which involved the two wives of the petitioner, and this long enmity manifested itself in the complaint made by Mr. Matamber Tiwari to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad. By this time, when the complaint was made in the year 2007, the petitioner had almost completed his service tenure and was about to retire after a year. The complaint which was made in 2007 contained a recital that the petitioner had entered into a second marriage without requisite permission and he was, therefore, continuing in service in violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 29 is quoted below for ready reference: "29. Bigamous marriages.-(1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. (2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without fist obtaining the permission of the Government." The petitioner is a Hindu by religion, which fact is undisputed. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes bigamy punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act is quoted below: "17. Punishment of bigamy -Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Sections 498 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly."
(3.) The complaint which was the outcome of a evil neighbours design, saw its way to an inquiry, which in the preliminary round was conducted by the Circle Officer, Shri A.K. Shukla, who submitted a report on 25th March, 2008. The petitioner was issued a notice informing him that the report in relation to his alleged bigamous relationship has been received and one Mr. Shiv Baran Singh another Circle Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct a regular inquiry under the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The Enquiry Officer served the petitioner with a charge sheet dated 5th April, 2008 and after conducting the inquiry submitted a report on 28th May, 2008. The petitioner was found to have contracted a second marriage without permission of the State Government which amounted to a misconduct. A show cause notice, after the inquiry, was issued to the petitioner on 1st June, 2008 whereafter the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer's report and the evidence on record was taken into account and the petitioner was punished by dismissal from service on 21 st June, 2008. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed on 20th August, 2008 and a revision filed before the Inspector General of Police against the order of the Appellate Authority was also dismissed on 18.11.2008. The petitioner has justified his actions and questioned the legality and correctness of the aforesaid orders impugned in the present writ petition and has prayed for quashing of the same with a direction to the respondents to treat him as a regular employee and award him all such benefits even after his retirement. It is undisputed that the petitioner has also attained his age of superannuation which he would have attained even otherwise during the course of these proceedings.;