The dismissal of a police constable for alleged bigamy was upheld as valid, with the inquiry conducted in accordance with the rules, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1991, passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, 3rd Class, Jalandhar, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration was dismissed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1993, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1991, was dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration pleading therein that he joined the Punjab Police Department as a Constable on 28.03.1973 in the P.A.P at Jalandhar Cantt. He married with Raghvir Kaur daughter of Kehar Singh, r/o village Daudpur, Distt. Jalandhar, in 1978. From this wedlock a son was born but died. Thereafter, his relations with his wife became strained and she started living separately with her parents. Raghvir Kaur refused to resume the society of the plaintiff. Raghvir Kaur started levelling allegations of bigamy against the plaintiff and she made complaints. On the basis of the complaints, departmental inquiry was ordered to be initiated against him. In the inquiry it was held that the plaintiff had contracted a second marriage with Sidho daughter of Sh. Rattan Singh resident of village Khanowal, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala without the consent of Raghvir Kaur. On the basis of inquiry report, the Commandant, 7th Battalion, dismissed the plaintiff from service vide order dated 31.08.1985. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order to Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. The appeal was also dismissed vide orders dated 05.02.1986. The plaintiff alleged that the impugned orders were illegal and ultra-virus as the same were passed without following the proper procedure for conducting the departmental inquiry. There was no evidence that he contracted a second marriage rather there was enough evidence on the file that Sidho was the wife of his brother. The sanction of the District Magistrate as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules was not taken for holding departmental inquiry against him. The inquiry was without jurisdiction and authority. The plaintiff was not heard by the punishing authority before passing the impugned order. The appellate Authority also did not apply its mind while dismissing his appeal. The impugned orders were illegal. He prayed that the orders be set aside.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with Rules. The plaintiff contravened the provisions of Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1966 and he married Sidho. He was guilty of bigamy. The inquiry was held in accordance with Rules and he was rightly dismissed from Service.

4. On the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 5.2.1986 and 31.8.85 dismissing the plaintiff from service are illegal, void, unlawful etc.? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff had served a valid notice before filing the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.1991.

6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.1993. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that both the Courts below failed to apprec