PRAHLAD MANI TRIPATHI Vs. S.G. SHAHID AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a temporary process-server in the Court of the District Judge at Deoria. On a circular letter issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 14th May, 1970, that action may be taken against a Government servant, who had contracted a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife, even though the aggrieved party has not filed a criminal complaint in Court of law. the District Judge directed the sadar Munsarim to report if there was any such case among the employees, of class 3 and class 4 in his Court. The Sadar Munsarim reported that there appears to be a case of bigamous marriage of the petitioner and that he would report after ascertaining full facts and figures from the petitioner. The further report of the Sadar Munsarim is not on the file but it appears from the counter affidavit that the District Judge ordered the Central Nazir to make a report. The Central Nazir reported that on an inquiry he had come to know that the petitioner had two wives. Acting on this report, the District Judge terminated the services of the petitioner after giving him one month's notice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up to this Court.

(2.) It may be mentioned at the outset that no inquiry appears to have been made by the Central Nazir with the petitioner himself. His report is characterised by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the petition as incorrect, and this averment has not been denied in the counter affidavit. I have to accept accordingly that the report of the Central Nazir that the petitioner had two wives is incorrect. At the end of paragraph 13 of the petition appears the following sentence:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the termination of the. services of the petitioner is in truth and law a dismissal or removal from service. He pointed out that the report of the Central Nazir that the petitioner had two wives was the sole reason for the impugned order and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to answer to the charge that he had two wives. There is no doubt that, on account of the policy adopted by the Government as enunciated in the Circular Letter of the Government, the Government servant having a second wife during the lifetime of his first wife shall be considered to be guilty of fault or misconduct. Thus, the petitioner's services have been terminated for a fault or misconduct, which casts a stigma and aspersion upon his character.