V.K.Shukla - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court, questioning the validity of decision taken by respondent authorities dispensing with the services of petitioner and subsequent orders of affirmance passed by appellate authority as well as revising authority, dated 14.8.2000, 29.7.2005, 22.5.2006 and 10.10.2006, respectively.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to instant writ petition, are that petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as constable driver with Rapid Action Force, a branch of Central Reserve Police Force since 23.12.1991, and petitioner was posted at Aligarh. Earlier, petitioner, before being enrolled as member of the force, was married to one Smt. Vidya Rani. Petitioner has contended that out of said wedlock, there were no issues, as such with mutual consent of Smt. Vidya Rani, it was resolved to live separately, and in this regard joint affidavit was sworn on 22.3.1999. Petitioner claims that he had taken consent of his first wife to marry again, and in this regard, petitioner further claims to have moved application on 9.8.1999 to his superior officer for according him permission to enter into marriage. Petitioner, thereafter contracted marriage on 11.5.1999 with one Hirdayesh Kumari, who was no one else than a lady constable in the Rapid Action Force, a part of Central Reserve Police Force. On 21.9.1999, petitioner filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent authorities decided to hold enquiry against petitioner under Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, and articles of charge was communicated to petitioner on 31.10.1999. Charge levelled against petitioner was to the effect that petitioner had married Hirdayesh Kumari, although his first wife, Smt. Vidya Rani was still alive. In the said enquiry proceeding brother of Smt. Vidya Rani appeared as P.W. 3 and made categorical statement that even out of the wedlock of his sister with the petitioner, a daughter Km. Neelam was born and Smt. Vidya Rani was staying with her in-laws. Inquiry Officer concluded inquiry and found petitioner guilty of the charges, which had been levelled against him. Thereafter by order dated 14.8.2000, petitioner was dismissed from service, holding that petitioner had contracted second marriage in the lifetime of his first wife. Against the said order of dismissal, petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated 4.2001. Revision filed against the said order also met the same fate. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12534 of 2004 before this Court. This Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2005 quashed the orders of the revising authority as well as appellate authority and remanded the matter to the appellate authority. Categorical finding of fact has been recorded by this Court in its judgment that it is true that in contracting second marriage on 11.5.1999, petitioner violated Rule 15 of 1955 Rules since by merely swearing a joint affidavit, dissolution of marriage of petitioner with his first wife could not be accepted. This Court, however, proceeded to mention that mutual consent read with affidavit of the parties that they had decided to live separately was relevant fact while considering the quantum of punishment to be awarded on the petitioner. In this background, in respect of awarding quantum of punishment, matter was remanded back. This Court mentioned that matter required reconsideration in appeal after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the application filed with mutual consent before issuance of charge-sheet and order of civil court granting divorce by mutual consent. Thereafter appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been reconsidered, and the appellate authority has rejected the appeal by mentioning that punishment has been awarded as per Rules, inasmuch as, no Government servant can enter into or contract second marriage while his spouse is alive or without obtaining decree of divorce from competent court of law. Appeal has been dismissed on 22.5.2006. Thereafter, revision preferred against the same has also been dismissed on 10.10.2006. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. On behalf of respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that marriage has been contracted by petitioner with lady constable Hirdayesh Kumari and both started living as wife and husband even without obtaining divorce from his first wife or prior permission from the competent authority. It has also been stated that Smt. Vidya Rani is illiterate and innocent lady and has been misguided by petitioner. It has also been stated that out of the said wedlock of petitioner with Smt. Vidya Rani, a female child Km. Neelam was born ; she is alive and living with her mother. Photograph to the same effect was even produced before Inquiry Officer, and this fact has also been recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report. In this background, it has been contended that claim of petitioner is totally based on falsehood, and in this background, as provisions of Rule 15 read with Rule 21 (2) (c) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 have been violated. Further in respect of factum of marriage in between petitioner and Smt. Hirdayesh Kumari reference has been given of various documentary evidence, which clinchingly establish marriage and in this background, it has been contended that no interference is required. Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed and therein the statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated.
(3.) AFTER pleadings have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case punishment of dismissal from service is totally unjustifiable and the same is not at all commensurate to the charge levelled, and coupled with this Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 is confined to only minor charges. Thus, the incumbent found guilty could have been awarded punishments wh?ch are mentioned therein and the order of dismissal is not provided therein as such same is unjustifiable, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.;