Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant-writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.7204 of 2006 by which his challenge to the order of his dismissal from service has failed.

2. By an order dated 16.08.2005 passed in a departmental proceeding, the appellant was dismissed from service which was communicated to him by a letter dated 22.08.2005 and the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 16.08.2005 has been dismissed by the appellate-authority by an order dated 09.08.2006.

3. The appellant was appointed as Recorder-cum-Chaser on 27.03.1982 and he has superannuated from service on 31.03.2009. On an allegation that without permission of the Management he has married another woman while his first wife was alive, a charge-memo was served upon the appellant on 08.05.2004. The statement of allegation against the appellant accompanying the charge-sheet dated 08.05.2004 reads as under:

“It has been reported that you have married with another woman without prior permission of B.S.L. Management, while your first wife is alive.

This is a case of Bigamy which is a misconduct on your part.”

4. The appellant has pleaded that he was married to Bina Sharan in the year 1969 and when he joined the Bokaro Steel Plant in the year 1982 the name of Smt. Bina Sharan was recorded in his personal file with the employer and she has been availing all facilities including the medical facility as his wife from his employer. He has taken a stand that since his wife was not staying with him, on his request the complainant-Anju Sinha was staying in his house as his “care-taker”. He has asserted that the said Anju Sinha did not avail any facility from the employer-company and she has, infact, written letter dated 24.12.2004 withdrawing her previous letter dated 09.04.2003. This letter dated 09.04.2003 was sent by Anju Sinha claiming herself wife of the appellant to the Managing Director, Steel Authority of India for incorporating her name in the service records of the appellant. This is the letter on the basis of which the present departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant.

5. In the departmental proceeding, two witnesses were examined by the Management in support of the charge framed against him. A copy of the Life Insurance Policy in which Anju Sinha has been shown as wife of the appellant, a joint photograph of the appellant with Anju Sinha, statement of the Principal of the Chinmaya Vidyalaya and the Progress Report card of Miss Gargi Sharan wherein she has been shown as daughter of the appellant were produced by the department to show that the appellant has married Anju Sinha while his first wife namely, Smt. Bina Sharan is still alive. The appellant has examined three witnesses; one of the witnesses was Anju Sinha herself. Her own brother namely, B.P. Srivastava was also examined as a defence witness. The enquiry officer on the basis of the evidences laid during the enquiry has found the charge of ‘bigamy’ proved. The appellant made a detailed representation in response to the second show-cause notice dated 20.06.2005 taking a stand that when the complainant-Anju Sinha herself has admitted that she is not married to the appellant and she has been staying with the appellant as ‘care-taker’, the charge of bigamy framed in the departmental proceeding is not proved.

6. The learned writ Court has held as under :

“14. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. and Others versus Prasenjit Dutta reported in (1994) 2 SCC 37 has held that in a departmental proceeding of a charge of bigamy, the departmental authorities are not precluded from examining the question of second marriage for limited purpose of departmental action. It has also held that the departmental proceeding cannot be suspended till proper adjudication by Civil or Family Court.

15. Thus, applying the said principles in a departmental proceeding, it is not necessary to prove