KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and SriKhurshed Alam appearing on behalf of newly added respondent no. 3.
(2.) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit. The petitioner, who is a Head Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary posted at 26th Battalion PAC, Gorakhpur, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the respondent no. 2 placing him under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The charge against the petitioner is that he has contracted another marriage during the life time of his first wife without obtaining permission of the Government and thus, has committed offence of bigamy. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that second marriage was performed after divorcing first wife, namely, respondent no. 3, in accordance with Muslim Law. He further pointed out that notary affidavit was also signed by the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 on 02.09.2009 attested by two witnesses clearly mentioning therein that they have divorced out of their sweet-will and amount of 'Mehar' has also been paid. Sri Khurshed Alam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, on the basis of instruction, has denied the factum of divorce and also the notary affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with with the same.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact that the petitioner has contracted second marriage is not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the second marriage has been contracted by the petitioner after giving divorce to the respondent no. 3, his first wife, or during the subsistence of the first marriage. This is purely a question of fact depending upon the evidence which is not liable to be considered by this Court at this stage. It is for the petitioner to put up his defence before the inquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings who will consider the same. Still, however, a question arises whether in such facts and circumstances, the order placing the petitioner under suspension can be said to be justified. Suspension is normally resorted to when offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of delinquent tampering with the evidence if he is allowed to continue to retain his official capacity. ;