The standard of proof in departmental proceedings, the presumption in favor of wedlock, and the quantum of punishment in cases of bigamy.

JUDGMENT

Ananda Sen, J. - Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shrestha Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner had prayed to quash the order dated 16.08.2005 communicated to the petitioner on 22.08.2005 (Annexure 13), by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited. Further a prayer has been made to quash the communication dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure 15) along with the order by which the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Recorder-cum-Chaser on 27.03.1982 in Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a Senior Planner when a departmental charge-sheet dated 08.05.2004 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager. It was alleged that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct under the Standing Orders of the Company, as such, a departmental proceeding is liable to be initiated against him. The charge against the petitioner is as follows: -

"Married with another woman without prior permission of the Management, while first wife is alive."

4. The petitioner being an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant, is admittedly governed by the Standing Orders of Steel Authority of India Ltd. According to Clause 37(xxiii) of the said Orders, the aforementioned charge is a misconduct under the Standing Orders of the Company, which, if proved, attracts major penalty.

5. The petitioner filed his reply to the said charge-sheet, denying the charges levelled against him. He admitted that he was married as per the Hindu rites and customs with Bani Sharan in the year 1969. He stated that in 1982, when he joined Bokaro Steel Plant, her name was entered in the personal records as a wife. He admitted that Vani Sharan never joined him, rather resided in her paternal house. He admitted in the said show cause that as he was living alone, he needed company of a lady to take care of him. He met Anju Sinha and he gave the proposal to Anju Sinha to become his care taker and as Anju Sinha also needed some person, she readily accepted the offer. Then, they started living together. He stated that Anju Sinha is not availing any benefit from the Company and she is still known as Anju Sinha. He stated that in the complaint written by Anju Sinha, she claims herself to be caretaker of this petitioner and nothing more.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that the entire issue arose because of a letter written by said Anju Sinha to the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant. The said letter is at Annexure-4 to this writ application. In the said letter, she makes a prayer to enter her name and the name of her daughter, Gargi Sharan, in the service book of this petitioner as ''wife'' and ''daughter'' of the employee. She writes that she is the married wife of Tripurari Sharan, Staff No. 498825 (petitioner), working in the Bokaro Steel Plant and their marriage had taken place in the year 1985 and they have been blessed with a daughter, who is 8 years old. She wrote that inspite of request having been made to this petitioner, time and again, her name and her daughter''s name has not been incorporated in the personal records of the petitioner for which they are facing several problems. On this background, she wrote the letter to the Managing Director of Bokaro Steel Plant. This letter is the germane of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

7. As the reply to the charge-sheet was unsatisfactory, the Company started departmental inquiry. An Inquiry Committee was constituted and opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the said inquiry. The inquiry was conducted after following the principles of natural justice. Witnesses were examined and were cross examined on behalf of this petitioner. Said Anju Sinha was also examined as a witness on behalf of this petiti