Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) The appellant -writ petitioner being aggrieved by orders dated 29.6.2010 and 14.12.2010 by which he was dismissed from service, approached the Writ Court through the medium of 'W.P. (S) No. 2428 of 2011 seeking quashing of the said orders with a prayer for his reinstatement into service taking certain pleas which did not find favour with the learned Writ Court resulting into dismissal of the writ petition, hence the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is at admission stage and further on Board for its final consideration. The appellant -writ petitioner (for short petitioner) is a constable -driver. He was proceeded departmentally for a charge that he had started friendship (induced) with the daughter of one Binod Yadav, who was hardly 19 years of age (half of the age of the petitioner). This fact ultimately came to the notice of the parents of the girl, who decided to marry their daughter with some other person. The date of marriage was also fixed i.e. 4.7.2009 in Jagarnath Mandir and when the marriage was about to be solemnized, the petitioner came there and created nuisance, resultantly, the marriage could not be solemnized. The petitioner faced the enquiry in this regard and ultimately charge was proved against him. Second show -cause notice was also slapped upon him to which also he responded and ultimately his services were terminated. Being aggrieved of the said order, he also filed appeal, which met the same fate.
(2.) The only ground taken by Dr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in order to vitiate the entire proceeding of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner, is that the petitioner was never charged with the charge of bigamy and that the only allegation against him was of inducing the daughter of Binod Yadav and disturbing the marriage of the said girl whereas, the enquiry report reveals as if the charge of bigamy is proved against him. He submitted that even the appellate authority also considered it to be a case of bigamy, therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced in the departmental proceedings, the charge being altogether different from the enquiry conducted against him resulting into termination of his services. He submitted that on this fundamental defect only, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner fall on the ground. He thus prayed for allowing the appeal and quashing of the aforesaid orders dated 29.6.2010 and 14.12.2010 impugned in the writ petition.
(3.) We do not agree with the submissions advanced by Dr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel. We have carefully examined the enquiry report from which it appears that the petitioner himself had admitted before the enquiry officer that he has solemnized marriage with the daughter of Binod Yadav (name of the girl not being disclosed). Not only that, he also filed the marriage certificate dated 30.7.2009, may be in order to rebut the allegation and demolish the charge leveled against him. It is how the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner has contracted the second marriage with the daughter of Binod Yadav.;