- (1.) SERVICES of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 3rd July, 1992, for the petitioner concealed the fact of having two wives while he was accorded appointment in the State service. Aggrieved of the order, terminating his employment, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): "i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order of removal dt.3.7.1992(Annex -4) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set -aside. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and continuity of service. iii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the order regarding recovery of salary for actual duty period rendered by petitioner as made in impugned order, Annex -4, dt. 3.7.92 be declared illegal and further it may be declared that the respondents have no authority to recover the salary for actual duty period. iv) Or an other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of petitioner. v) Costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The petitioner being eligible, successfully participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade -III, and was accorded appointment on 12th September, 1991 by Zila Parishad, Baran. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that his marriage with Smt. Kamla, his first wife, was performed in the year 1971. However, on account of matrimonial/marital discord, his wife was living separately. The petitioner contracted second marriage as per custom ('Nata Marriage') with one Smt. Kailashi Bai. His first wife, Smt. Kamla, instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheopur Kallan, (M.P.). A compromise was arrived at between the parties on 2nd July, 1991, and deed of compromise was filed in the concerned Court (Annexure -1). According to the compromise, the petitioner agreed to share half of his earnings with Smt. Kamla Bai. The petitioner further agreed that, in the event, he joined government service, he would pay a sum of Rs.700/ - (Rs. Seven hundred) per month, as maintenance to Smt. Kamla and son Laxmi Chand.
(3.) A complaint was lodged by Smt. Kamla Bai with the Panchayat Samiti, Kishanganj, Baran, for non -compliance of the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between the parties with regard to payment of maintenance. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kishanganj, Baran, vide order dated 17th March, 1992, directed the petitioner to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise. By notice/communication dated 15th May, 1992, the petitioner was called upon to explain the circumstances for not informing the Department about the fact that he had two wives while he entered the Government Service. In response to the notice/communication, the petitioner submitted his explanation/reply dated 23rd June, 1992 (Annexure -R/1).Having considered the reply of the petitioner to the notice; the State -respondents terminated the services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 3rd July, 1992, for concealment of the fact of having two wives while the petitioner entered the government service. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds on the writ application, has vehemently argued that the impugned order, terminating the services of the petitioner, has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not served with any charge -sheet and was not allowed to explain the adverse circumstances. Therefore, the termination of the employment of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the cardinal principles of natural justice. Further, it was necessary for the State -respondents to conduct an enquiry under the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules or Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Since no enquiry has been conducted by the competent authority and no charges have been framed against the petitioner, the impugned order, terminating the employment of the petitioner, is bad in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to reinforce his submissions, has placed reliance on the opinion in the case of Laxman Singh Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.; 1998(3) WLC (Raj.) 448.;