The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee cannot be punished for an act that was not considered misconduct under the applicable rules and regulations at the time of the alleged act.

(PRAYER IN W.AS: These writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 11.4.2004 in WPMP Nos.6855 of 2005 and 36222 of 2004 W.P.No.29827 of 2004.

PRAYER IN W.P: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1 respondent in ID No.37/03 and quash its award dated 13.7.2004 in so far as it granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.)

COMMON JUDGMENT

P.K. Misra, J

The facts giving rise to the present litigations are as follows: The National Institute of Port Management was formed in 1984 and registered as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The Institute functions under the supervision of a Governing Body consisting of the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport as ex-officio Chairman and other Members representing the Ministry of Surface Transport, Planning Commission. Shipping interests, National Management Institutes, the Indian Ports Association and also some major ports. The Institute was set up to train the officers of the major ports of India. The dispute in these matters relate to disciplinary proceedings and subsequent determination by the Proceeding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. For convenience, the contesting respondent in writ petition is referred to as the workman and the petitioner in the Writ Petition is referred to as the Management.

1.1 The workman joined the service as a Driver on 08.11.1986. On 25.05.1989, the Administrative Officer of the Organization issued an order purporting to be the guidelines for drivers of the National Institute of Port Management. At the time of entering into service, the workman had given a dependents' declaration form, declaring the various dependents so far as he was concerned. He had indicated therein about his wife. It is alleged that on 11.11.1992 the workman married another lady namely P.Nirmala and the factum of such marriage was entered in the Marriage Register maintained under Hindu Marriage Act in the office of the Sub Registrar's Office, Thiruvotriyur. When the aforesaid matter came to the knowledge of the management, a memorandum dated 15.06.1993 was issued to the workman, wherein he was required to furnish the details.

1.2 Subsequently, by an order dated 23.6.1993, the workman was placed under suspension, wherein it was indicated that the civil marriage was registered on 11.11.1992 between the workman and the co-employee, even though the workman was already married. It was further indicated that the workman had suppressed such information about the second marriage. It was further indicated that the workman was liable for having committed the offence of bigamy, which is an offence under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated. A charge sheet and show cause notice was issued on 03.12.1993. The charge sheet narrates about the civil marriage between the workman and the co-employee on 11.11.1992 and the fact that the workman had suppressed such second marriage from the administration, till notice was served on the workman on 15th June 1993. The second charge referred to the National Institute of Port Management's rules and regulations and indicated that the conduct and disciplinary rules prohibited bigamous marriage. The other charges indicated that the workman was liable for being prosecuted under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code for having entered such illegal and bigamous marriage and there was illicit relationship with co-employee of the organization.

1.3 In the departmental enquiry, the workman pleaded that even though the certificate was issued, no marriage had been solemnized. It was further indicated that there was no illegal or illicit relationship. It was also indicated that there was no suppressio