Rakesh Sharma - (1.) HEARD Sri Ram Shiromani Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State.
(2.) THE petitioner, an erstwhile Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) working in 41st Battalion, P.A.C., Ghaziabad has assailed the order of removal dated 13.1.2006 passed by the D.I.G., P.A.C., Meerut Range, Meerut and subsequent orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities. It was a case of a lady police official who was a widow unknowingly, remarried to her junior colleague one constable (M) Ajeet Singh who was alleged to be already married to someone, In place of awarding a minor penalty as provided under Rule 29 of the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. THE punishment was too harsh and it did not commensurate to the charges levelled against her. Sub-rule (3) of rule 29 of the above said rule itself provides for awarding a minor penalty of withholding of an increment for three years if the Government servant violates the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) and (2). THE widow with two minor children could not get herself resettled in life, rather lost her job which was provided to her on compassionate ground after death of her first husband, a police personnel. It emerges from the record that the petitioner's husband had died while in Government service and she was provided with compassionate appointment in the Police department on a ministerial post. She was appointed on the post of constable (M) on 21.11.1992 as her husband had died in harness on 10.2.1992. Considering her satisfactory services, she was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (M). While the petitioner was posted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police (M) in the office of S.S.P., Bulandshahr in the year 2003, she met Sri Ajeet Singh who was also posted there as constable (M). The petitioner being a widow was being provided emotional and other kind of support by Sri Ajeet Singh and intimate relationship developed between the two. As per learned counsel for the petitioner she did not know about the fact that Sri Ajeet Singh was already married or her wife was a serious patient of Tuberculosis. Both of them agreed to go for a court marriage and accordingly the said union was registered by the Registrar (Hindu Marriage) on 11.3.2003. No formal marriage as per Hindu rites Satpadi etc. was performed. The petitioner already had two minor children, one daughter and a son at the time of her marriage. In fact she was in urgent need of emotional and other support to run and manage her family and the colleague Sri Ajeet Singh had always extended co-operation to her in sustaining herself in life and society. He was always available to her with a helping hand. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the petitioner that she did not know that Sri Ajeet Singh was already married and had a wife living in the village. Both of them started living together and she was transferred to 41st Battalion, P.A.C., Ghaziabad in the year 2004. On some complaints, the Commandant, P.A.C. ordered a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner for violating the provisions contained in Section 29 of the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. A preliminary enquiry was conducted initially by one Dharam Singh, Assistant Commandant and subsequently Smt. Abha Singh, Deputy Commandant started a departmental enquiry by issuing a charge-sheet on 9.2.2005. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet dated 9.2.2005 and pleaded herself innocence of the charges. While the first departmental enquiry was still pending, a second preliminary enquiry was also ordered against the petitioner to be conducted by one Sri Santosh Kumar, an Assistant Commandant in 41st Bn, P.A.C. who submitted his report on 30.5.2005. This time Sri Ashok Kumar, Deputy Commandant had issued another charge memo on 6.8.2005. Both the charges dated 9.2.2005 and 6.8.2005 contained the same charges. The petitioner again submitted a reply to this charge-sheet on 17.8.2005 pleading innocence.
(3.) THE Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted the report on 15.9.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. THE Enquiry Officer had recommended dismissal of the petitioner from the service. THEse findings were approved and a show cause notice was issued on 25.11.2005. THE petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 76193 of 2005 in this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the proceedings and show cause notice. This Court had ordered for completing the enquiry within a stipulated period. THE reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 22.12.2005. Several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court were cited before the concerned officer. THEse cases supported the case of the petitioner. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, D.I.G. of Police, Meerut had passed the final order of penalty on 13.1.2006 dismissing the petitioner from service. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners case was not covered by Rule 29 of the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 as the charge-sheet did not indicate that the petitioner did not obtain the permission of the State Government before undergoing remarriage. A widow could remarry under law though offence of remarriage is punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. This is not applicable in the petitioners case as she was a widow at the time of her marriage. The petitioner had not violated any of the provisions contained in the said section. If Sri Ajeet Singh was already married, the petitioners marriage which was registered in the office of Registrar of Marriage on 11.3.2003 shall be treated to be null and void. The court marriage solemnised on 11.3.2003 by issuing certificate by Registrar of Marriage has become null and void if Sri Ajeet Singh was treated to be already married. The marriage being null and void, no action should have been taken against the petitioner under Rule 29 of the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.;