Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on 8.9.2008 by which the order passed by the disciplinary authority stands upheld. The impugned orders are contained in Annexure -1 and 1 -A to the writ petition respectively.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) on 7.7.94 and subsequently he was promoted as Head Constable and was posted at Balrampur at the relevant point of time. It is gathered from averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner was married to one Smt. Kesa Devi in the year 1984 according to rituals of Hindu religion and after five years of his marriage, Gauna took place and Smt. Kesa Devi came to live in the house of her in -laws alongwith the petitioner.
(3.) The pleadings reveal that marital relationship between the petitioner and Smt. Kesa Devi was cordial but out of their wedlock they did not have any issue and for this reason, not only family members of the petitioner but Smt. Kesa Devi being the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, were deeply concerned. The petitioner, it is alleged, on account of compelling circumstances generated by the family members as well as motivation exercised by his wife, entered into a relationship with one Smt. Sangita and out of this relationship, two children were born. The relationship with Smt. Sangita, as per the material available on record, is almost like the second marriage for the reason that the petitioner and Smt. Sangita alongwith his first wife have lived together sometime since the year 1999. Smt. Kesa, who is legally wedded first wife of the petitioner, did not oppose or protest nor lodged any proceedings against the petitioner for a considerable period of time but later on, it appears that a complaint came to be made by Smt. Kesa Devi against the petitioner, wherein the fact of second marriage was disclosed coupled with the allegation that the petitioner was not taking good care of her and being a government servant he is duty bound to maintain her failing which it would be violative of Rule 29 (1) of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Essentially the protest was for seeking maintenance so that complainant -wife could also lead her life with the husband.;