AJAY TEWARI J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.08.2000 (Annexure P-29) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 24.01.2001 (Annexure P-33) whereby the departmental appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Department of Cultural Affairs, Archives and Museums, Punjab as Librarian in the year 1983 and she was confirmed against that post on 08.04.1991. One Surinder Mohan had made a complaint in the department of the petitioner that she performed marriage with an already married man and by this she had violated Rule 21 of the Punjab Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1966 which is reproduced here as under:- "21. Restriction regarding marriage- (1) No Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. ( 2 ) No female Government employee shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government . ( 3 ) A Government employee who has married or marries a person other than of Indian Nationality, shall forthwith intimate facts to the Government." Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit a reply to the complaint vide letter dated 22.07.1999. On 09.08.1999, the petitioner submitted her reply and also sought certified copies of few documents. She was again asked to submit a reply and it was clarified that the documents sought by her had no relevance with the explanation sought from her. In the second reply she submitted that the marriage of her husband Baldev Singh with one Sarabjit Kaur stood already dissolved by a customary divorce and therefore she was the only legally wedded wife of her husband ever since the year 1983. The said reply was found to be unsatisfactory and she was served a charge-sheet dated 21.10.1999 and she was again asked to file a reply to it. She submitted a detailed reply dated 05.11.1999 denying the charges leveled against her and alongwith that she also submitted a photocopy of Memorandum of Customary Dissolution of Marriage dated 27.01.1982. The said reply was found to be unsatisfactory by the department and the Directorate had sought the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer who opined that only a decree of divorce granted by the competent Court under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act could dissolve a marriage and a divorce obtained outside the Court had no meaning whatsoever. The petitioner was asked to produce a original divorce/decree but had not produced the same and had only produced a decree dated 21.07.2000 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana whereby the Court had recognized the Agreement of Customary Dissolution of Marriage dated 27.01.1982 between Sarabjit Kaur and Baldev Singh. The respondent No.3 found that the charge was proved against the petitioner and he dismissed the petitioner from service.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the customary divorce was recognized by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana no question arises whether the divorce decree is valid or invalid. He has further argued that the petitioner had unnecessarily been harassed by her seniors and that when she objected, the present proceedings were initiated for forcing her to withdraw her complaints.;