The central legal point established in the judgment is that a bigamous marriage, even if contracted prior to joining the service, constitutes misconduct under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1964. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes that the disqualification of a person with more than one living spouse from joining the police service continues indefinitely.

1. The petitioner joined in Police service as a Grade 2 Police Constable on 27.05.1988. The said post is governed by the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. While so, the third respondent by his proceedings in Tha.Ko.No.59/Tha.Pi.1(2)/97 issued a charge memo to the petitioner, framing charges under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. According to the said charge, on 07.12.1981, when his first wife Mrs.Selvi was alive and the marriage was in subsistence, the petitioner had contracted second marriage with one Tamilarasi in the year 1986. This conduct of the petitioner entering into the bigamous marriage is a violation of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1964. Since the petitioner had allegedly violated the said Conduct Rules, charge memorandum came to be issued.

2. The petitioner has admitted that he married Ms.Tamilarasi in the year 1986. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1964 prohibits a police officer from contracting second marriage subsequent to entering into service. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the second marriage with Ms.Tamilarasi that the petitioner had contracted long prior to his joining service is not at all a misconduct in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1964. Not satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed and he conducted enuqiry. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner admitted his marriage with Ms.Tamilarasi in the year 1986. But the enquiry officer, rejecting his explanation, found that he committed misconduct in terms of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1964. Based on the said enquiry officer's report and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make further representation, the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 14.12.1998, dismissed the petitioner from service. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent, by his proceedings in Proc.R.C.No.Appeal.3/PR.I(3)/99 dated 26.03.1999 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order of removal from service. Challenging the same, he filed a review to the Government and the first respondent/Government, by issuing G.O.3D.No.137 Home (Pol.V) Department dated 26.06.2001 dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the Government and the same was also rejected by the Government under Letter No.127390/Pol.V/2002-8 dated 29.04.2005. Aggrieved over the above, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian assisted by Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader. I have also perused the records carefully.

4. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner had married one Ms.Tamilarasi in the year 1986 during the subsistence of the first marriage between him and one Selvi. Therefore, there can be no difficulty to hold that the petitioner had contracted bigamous marriage. Now the legal question involved in this case is as to whether the said bigamous marriage, which was contracted prior to entering into service, would fall within the ambit of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules, 1964 so as to be a misconduct to be dealt with under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rule 23 deals only with a situation after an officer had entered into the service and the said Rule cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the conduct of a police officer, which occurred prior to his joining service. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court i