Disciplinary action for bigamy must align with statutory provisions, ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the misconduct, with compulsory retirement deemed appropriate in this case.

JUDGMENT :

S.SRIMATHY, J.

The present writ appeal is filed against the order dated 08.06.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1782 of 2020.

2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the respondent and consequently to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all benefits.

3. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner was employed in Army and after voluntary retirement from Army, he was appointed in the Revenue Department during the year 2011 and on 01.03.2012, he was posted as Revenue Inspector at Tharagampatti, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. He served in the Revenue Department for nearly 8 years without any blemish and has not faced any charges during the service. However, on 29.06.2019 the petitioner’s 1^st wife namely, Roseline Sahaya Mary sent a complaint stating that the petitioner’s marriage with her was solemnized on 08.07.2001, they were blessed with two children namely, Clinton Antony and Santhosh, after marriage the petitioner often quarreled with her, ill-treated her and thrown her from matrimonial home on 14.04.2009, then the petitioner did not support financially and did not take care of her and children, thereafter she was appointed as temporary Clerk in District Central Cooperative Bank in the year 2011 and she is working there till date. The petitioner denied some of the allegations and submitted that after retirement from Army he was searching for a job and at that time, his 1^st wife ill-treated him, deserted willfully along with the children and all his efforts for reunion ended in vain, hence the petitioner filed a divorce petition in I.D.O.P.No.41 of 2011 before the District Judge, Tiruchirappalli alleging desertion and cruelty and the same was dismissed on 30.11.2012 and appeal in C.M.A.No.101 of 2013 before this Court was dismissed on 29.07.2015. The allegation against the writ petitioner is that he suppressed the above said facts and married one Thynish and the same was registered on 17.06.2019. Based on the complaint given by the 1^st wife the appellant issued charge memo dated 30.08.2019, which the petitioner received on 05.09.2019, the petitioner submitted reply on 16.09.2019 praying to drop the disciplinary proceedings, but the respondent appointed enquiry officer on 16.09.2019, after enquiry the charges were held proved in enquiry report dated 09.10.2019. Then explanation was called for from the writ petitioner based on the enquiry report vide letter dated 09.11.2019, the petitioner submitted reply on 28.11.2019, memo dated 29.11.2019 was issued calling for personal enquiry, the petitioner appeared on 09.12.2019, thereafter the impugned punishment order dated 06.01.2020 was passed imposing the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petition was filed.

4. The appellant herein / respondent therein had filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Revenue Inspector on 01.03.2012 and was serving in the office of Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Ring Road, Karur Unit – 1. The wife of the petitioner namely Roseline Sahayamary submitted a representation, dated 29.06.2019 levelling 12 allegations against the writ petitioner, one such allegations is that the petitioner married another lady and is living with her. As per Rule-19 (1) (ii) of the Tamil Na Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973, bigamy by Government servant is prohibited and it amounts to violation of Conduct Rules. Hence, the respondent directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai to enquiry into the matter based on the representation and it reported the allegation as true. Hence the respondent framed charges under 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the writ petitioner in Rc.No.A3/10368/2019, dated 30.08.2019 for the allegation of bigamy. After enquiry and based on enquiry report the respondent had passed the punishment order of removal f