GULAB BHAI SHANKARJI DESAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has assailed a memorandum issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 31.10.2003 whereby respondent No. 2 has issued charge sheet for misconduct in respect of which the inquiry was to be held. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) The grievance of the applicant is that he has been prosecuted repeatedly on the ground that he has contracted second marriage with Smt. Damayantiben Dhonde. This is false. The applicant has the only legally wedded wife Smt. Rasilaben. Smt. Damayantiben, however is a companion and life partner. The applicant is leading his private life peacefully. There is no complaint from anybody. The inquiry conducted by Collector of Dadra and Nagar Haveli in 1973 has exonerated him after recording evidence. In 1994 there was a complaint from Shri Jugal Patel, which was found to be false on investigation. The applicant has stated in his statement-dated 2.2.1994 before the Assistant Inspector General of Police that there is no second marriage and Smt. Damayantiben is his life partner. This is the third attempt to be charge sheeted against the applicant after two attempts have come to be failed and the applicant has been exonerated. He has another aspect which requires consideration in as much as the purported incident is 33 years old. The third ground is that the entire action is malicious because there is no complaint from any quarters with regard to celebration of the second marriage or registration the second marriage. Merely because the applicant is having another lady residing with him does not make her a legally wedded wife. Under Rule 21 of (I) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 there is a prohibition of entering to contract of marriage by Government servant with a person having a spouse living. The applicant has never contracted second marriage with Smt. Damayantiben. Therefore, the allegation that the applicant has contracted second marriage is totally false,

(3.) THE case of the respondents as it emerges from the written statement is that the applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging major penalty charge sheet dated 31.10.2003 issued to him. THE applicant has not submitted any reply to the said charge sheet before approaching this Tribunal. THE reply given by him is annexed as Exhibit R1. THErefore the O.A. deserves to be dismissed in limine. THE applicant has approached this Tribunal at interlocutory stage and therefore also the O.A. is premature and hence deserves to be dismissed.