Contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife by a government servant constitutes grave misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the orders of the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.Gna2/21248/2015 (Survey) dated 15.12.2015, confirming the appeal order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka. La1/26638/2014 dated 06.05.2015 which confirmed the second respondent’s appeal order made in Na.Ka.A4/9450/2013 dated 08.05.2014, which confirmed the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A8/3073/2012 dated 20.09.2013 and to quash the same as illegal and to issue consequential direction directing the first respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all service and consequential benefits, within the time limit as fixed by the Honourable Court.

The punishment of removal from service as confirmed by the Appellate Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he was working as Typist in the Department of Survey and Land Records. A charge memo was issued in proceedings dated 04.05.2012 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules with an allegation that the writ petitioner has committed an act of misconduct under Rule 19 (1) (i) and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. The allegation against the writ petitioner was that during the lifetime of his first wife, he contracted for a second marriage and therefore, committed an act of misconduct of Bigamous marriage, which is punishable under the Discipline and Appeal rules. The petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that he had obtained an agreement of divorce from his first wife and they separated due to misunderstanding. The first wife of the petitioner has given an agreement for divorce by consent and thereafter, the petitioner married one Smt.R.Asraf Jani and he married the said Smt.R.Asraf Jani as per the Mohammedan customs. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing to the authorities competent, they have appointed an Enquiry officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry. The Enquiry officer afforded an opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case. At the time of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed I.D.O.P.No.629/2012 before the Family Court at Coimbatore under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on 26.05.1982 between the petitioner and his first wife Mrs.J.Mary Josephine @ Anita. The petitioner subsequently also submitted explanations to the respondents on 18.07.2012 and on 13.08.2012.

3. Pertinently, the first wife of the writ petitioner Mrs.J.Mary Josephine @ Anita deposed before the Enquiry officer. The Deed of Divorce submitted by the petitioner was shown to the witness Smt.Anita, who in turn has stated before the Enquiry officer that the signature found in the Deed of Divorce is not her signature. The Deed of Divorce dated 27.08.1990 was created without her knowledge. Further, the first wife of the writ petitioner has stated that she lived with her husband/writ petitioner from 1982 to 1997 for about 15 years and thereafter, a misunderstanding aroused between them and she is living separately along with her son and daughter. She has further deposed that she has not married anybody. The first wife of the writ petitioner further deposed that her husband/writ petitioner got married with one Smt.R.Asraf Jani, who was working along with him. The first wife of the writ petitioner has stated that the petitioner has deserted her and her children. From and out of her own earnings, she is maintaining the two children. He has further filed a false document and the signature found in the agreement of divorce is not her signature and further deposed that the petitioner has given false document before the Department.

4. The enquiry officer considered all the documents including the evidences and the deposition of the witnesses and submitted a report on 26.12.2012. The enquiry