Disciplinary termination without jurisdiction violates natural justice; customary divorce acknowledged, rendering bigamy charges invalid under personal law.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Sharma, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality, propriety and validity of order dated 27.06.2011 whereby the disciplinary authority imposed upon him the penalty described as “termination from service”, along with all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto. The petitioner has further prayed for relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe Community. He was initially appointed as Hostel Superintendent (First Class) in Social Welfare Department pursuant to a regular selection conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

3. The petitioner was initially married to Smt. Narangi Meena. According to the petitioner, the said marriage stood dissolved on 25.04.1995 in accordance with the customary practices prevailing in the Meena Community. A panchnama evidencing such customary dissolution was prepared. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the competent authorities about the dissolution and by application dated 17.06.1995, sought permission to contract a second marriage. Petitioner has come out with a case that thereafter, reminders were also sent on several occasions over the next few years for seeking permission to perform second marriage, however, none of the communications were ever responded by the respondents.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner solemnised his marriage with Smt. Narayani @ Sudarshana on 26.02.1998. The petitioner duly intimated the department about the marriage repeatedly between 1998 and 2000. However, for the purpose of securing a certificate, the petitioner again solemnised marriage with Smt. Narayani as per Arya Samaj rites on 07.07.2003 and obtained a certificate of marriage. However, while submitting proposals under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme in August 2003 and April 2005, the petitioner’s first wife was erroneously mentioned as nominee and described as “wife”. As per the petitioner, the proposal forms were filled by the clerical staff and signed by him mechanically. Upon noticing the error, he immediately addressed letters seeking correction in September 2003 and May 2005.

5. The petitioner contended that the marital relationship between the petitioner and Smt. Narayani deteriorated during 2005–2006. In this backdrop, a complaint was submitted by Smt. Narayani alleging misconduct, including allegations of sexual abuse and bigamy. Acting on this complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.04.2006 and a memorandum of charges was issued on 10.04.2006 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958'). At the time when the impugned departmental proceedings were initiated, the petitioner was holding the post of District Probation-cum-Social Welfare Officer at Nagaur.

6. It is contended that no preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuing the charge sheet dated 10.04.2006. However, parallel criminal proceedings were also initiated on the same complaint. After a full-fledged trial, the competent criminal court acquitted the petitioner of all charges by judgment dated 03.06.2009. The judgment of acquittal has attained finality.

7. The Petitioner contended that despite submitting so many applications/ representations for seeking copies of relevant documents and raising objections regarding the enquiry officer, the departmental enquiry proceeded further. Material placed by the petitioner wa