Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Neena Kumari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 12351 of 2010
Decided On : 20-08-2019
Sandeep Saxena, Advocate, Prakhar Gupta, Advocate, Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, Vivek Tyagi, Advocate
A female Government servant does not violate Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971 by marrying a man who is unmarried at the time, even if he subsequently marries another woman.
Headnote:
BIGAMY - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICE (CONDUCT) RULES, 1971 - RULE 25(2) - MARRIAGE WITH UNMARRIED MAN - NO VIOLATION OF RULE 25(2) OF THE RULES OF 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Nurse Grade-II, was served with a charge-sheet for violation of Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (Rules of 1971), which prohibits female Government servants from marrying any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government. The allegation was that the petitioner had a marital relationship with Dinesh Raj Lodha, who was married to another woman at the time. The petitioner denied the allegation, arguing that her marriage to Dinesh Raj Lodha took place before he married the other woman and that, therefore, she did not violate Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's marriage to Dinesh Raj Lodha took place before he married the other woman and that, therefore, she did not violate Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971. The court also held that the amended version of Rule 25(2), which was introduced in 2001, did not apply to the petitioner because her marriage took place before the amendment came into effect.
Issues: Whether the petitioner violated Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971 by marrying Dinesh Raj Lodha, who was married to another woman at the time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not violate Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971 because her marriage to Dinesh Raj Lodha took place before he married the other woman. The court also held that the amended version of Rule 25(2), which was introduced in 2001, did not apply to the petitioner because her marriage took place before the amendment came into effect.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming following prayers:-
(I) By a writ of mandamus the impugned order dated 18.8.2010 (Annex.1), may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) By writ of mandamus it may be directed that petitioner shall be deemed to be continued in service with effect from the same date and shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs.
(iii) That any other writ, order or direction, which your lordship may deem fit and proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the petitioner.
(iv) The costs of the writ petition may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. The petitioner was appointed as Nurse Grade-II on 12.09.1983 and she has rendered satisfactory unblemished services and has been superannuated on 30.11.2017. The petitioner was served upon a charge-sheet on 18.12.2004 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short as "CCA Rules, 1958") for violation of Rule 25 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1971"). The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 3.5.2009 before the Disciplinary Authority in which he could not reach to a conclusion due to non-cooperation of the parties. The Disciplinary Authority issued a letter under Rule 16(10) of the CCA Rules, 1958 on 28.10.2009. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply through registered post. The Enquiry Officer again submitted a report on 12.4.2010 by not finding the petitioner guilty. The Disciplinary Authority again gave a notice of dis-agreement under Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 and after considering the reply, the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty for violation of Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971 was passed on 18.8.2010.
3. Mr.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from Annexure-3 that one Shobha Lodha had preferred a case against her husband Dinesh Raj Lodha for offences under Section 498-A and 495 of the IPC stating therein that the marriage between both of them had solemnized on 07.12.1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner had shown the order dated 25.05.2004 in which he laid emphasis upon para No.12, which reads as under:-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the marriage itself was not proved by the Competent Court of Law and hence, the disciplinary proceedings were erroneous.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this court to the charge, which reads as under:-
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation includes having marital relationship with Dinesh Raj Lodha and consequential birth of child. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the order of Maternity Leave given to the petitioner which is Annexure-2 in which Maternity Leave was from 19.02.1990 to 19.05.1990. Counsel further submits that the best case of the respondents is that a child was given birth by the petitioner on account of her marriage with Dinesh Raj Lodha between 19.02.1990 and 19.05.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this court towards Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971, which reads as under:-
"Unamended: 25. Bigamous marriage.-
(1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, not withstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him.
(2). No female Government Servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards amended Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1971 as amended in the year 2001, which reads as under:-
"25. Restriction regarding marriage:
(1) .....
(2) No Government servant having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any
