The judgment established that an act must be regarded as misconduct under relevant service rules for punishment to be given, and highlighted the distinction between law and morality.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service tribunal dated 31. 7. 2000 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and the order dated 8. 7. 1988 (Annexure-8 to the petition) and the order dated 30. 9. 1989 (Annexure-10 to the petition ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Uttar Pradesh on 14. 2. 1977. It is alleged that his work and conduct was good and there was no adverse entry against him. On 21. 9. 1985, the petitioner was suspended and a chargesheet served on him on 21. 3. 1987 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. The petitioner sent a reply (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition ). Thereafter an enquiry was held and after show cause notice, he was dismissed on 1. 7. 1988 vide Annexure-8 to the petition. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 30. 8. 1989, vide annexure-10 to the petition. The petitioner then went to the Tribunal, which rejected his claim petition. Hence, this writ petition.

( 3 ) A large number of points have been raised in this petition but, in our opinion, the first argument itself is sufficient to allow this petition and hence, we are not going into the other arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE charge against the petitioner as seen from the chargesheet is that although he had a married wife, he lived with one Champa Devi for seven months and this was in violation of Rule 29 to the Government Conduct Rules which prohibits bigamy.

( 5 ) RULE 29 (1) of the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, states : "no Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. "

( 6 ) IN our opinion, merely because a man lived with a woman, it does not mean that he is married to her. Unless the evidence proves the second marriage, it cannot be inferred that merely because the petitioner lived with Champa Devi for seven months, he was married to her. In fact, Champa devi had filed a case under Section 376/366, I. P. C. , against the petitioner but the petitioner was acquitted in that criminal case vide Judgment dated 11. 9. 1986 (Annexure-11 to the petition ).

( 7 ) IN paragraph 13 of its judgment, the Tribunal has stated that though the second marriage is not strictly proved by the evidence, yet it is an act unbecoming of a Government servant. In our opinion. Rule 29 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules will only apply if there was a second marriage, i. e. , bigamy. Since the Tribunal Itself has held that the second marriage was not proved, we fail to understand how the petitioner could have been held guilty of bigamy.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ministry of Finance v. S. B. Ramesh, 1998 (3) SCC 227. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and, in our opinion, the same is distinguishable.

( 9 ) IN paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has quoted the following observations of the Tribunal :

"though it would be ideal If sexual relationship is confined to legal wedlock, there is no law in our country which makes sexual relationship of two adult Individuals of different sex, unlawful unless the relationship is adulterous or promiscuous. If a man and a woman are residing under the same roof and if there is no law prohibiting such a residence, what transpires between them is not a concern of their employer. "

( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of its judgment has merely said that it disapproves the above observation of the Tribunal. However, no reasoning has been given in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court as to why it disapproved the above observations of the Tribunal. It is a settled principle that a decision is an authority for the principle of law It has laid down vide AIR 1975 SC 1087, AIR 1990 SC 781, air 1983 SC 1246, 1996 (6) SC