Government servants must adhere to conduct rules prohibiting bigamous marriages, requiring prior approval regardless of personal law or spousal consent.

Order on Board

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the three orders dated 13.02.2013 (Annexure P/4), 23.03.2013 (Annexure P/6) and 12.10.2013 (Annexure P/12).

2. Annexure P/4 dated 13.02.2013 is the order by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the misconduct committed by him under Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules for having married again during the lifetime of the first wife without obtaining the permission from the Government as is required under the Rules. Annexure P/6 dated 23.03.2013 is an order by which the first appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Departmental Appellate Authority stood rejected. Annexure P/12 dated 12.10.2013 is the order whereby the respondent No.2 again rejected the Mercy Appeal of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner was working as a Constable under the respondents. The petitioner after getting an appointment under the respondents got married in December, 2005 to one Smt. Mamta. However, inspite of the fact that the said Smt. Mamta being the wife of the petitioner and also being alive, the petitioner again entered into a marriage with one Nirasha Ledia and from the said second marriage, the petitioner also has a child born.

4. When this fact came to the notice of the Department, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet alleging two charges, one alleging that being a government servant the petitioner has misconducted himself by entering into a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife and also having children from the said second marriage. The second charge was that by entering into the second marriage, the petitioner has committed the misconduct as envisaged under Rule 22(1) & (2) of the Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965.

5. During the course of the departmental enquiry, it has been admitted and proved that during the lifetime of the first wife Smt. Mamta, the petitioner has entered into a second marriage and has also got a child from the said subsequent marriage. It was also an admitted position that before entering into the second marriage, the petitioner had not obtained any permission from the establishment in this regard. The Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of the materials brought before the Inquiry officer and also on perusal of the inquiry report having found that the charges stood fully proved, inflicted the petitioner with the order of termination vide Annexure P/4. The petitioner immediately thereafter preferred a departmental appeal and the Appellate Authority also vide Annexure P/6 rejected the appeal, against which the petitioner preferred a Mercy Appeal to the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 in turn vide Annexure P/12 rejected the appeal.

6. The sole ground of challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner is that the second marriage having being entered into by the petitioner was with the due consent and permission from the first wife. That the first wife had also sworn an affidavit in this regard in respect of the consent that she had given for the petitioner to enter into the second marriage. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, one in the case of “ Gopchand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh” 2004 (2) MPHT 21 and the second being WP No. 10638/2005, decided on 11.05.2010. In both the cases, the High Court had set-aside the order of termination and the petitioners therein were given a lighter punishment and were reinstated in service. The contention of the peti