.

Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagriti Singh and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated 30.11.2009 passed by respondent No. 4, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Sub-Inspector treating him continuous in service with all the consequential benefits.

3. The challenge in the present writ petition is that according to the respondents if it is proved regarding the plural marriage at the time of existence of first wife, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be granted in view of Rule 29 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956. According to the petitioner, some minor punishment in case it is proved that the petitioner has done the plural marriage, can be awarded after initiating any proceeding under the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1921.

4. It appears that on the basis of the complaint made by the alleged first wife, the respondents made an inquiry and after taking various evidence from various persons as well as the statement of the alleged subsequent wife, submitted a report that the petitioner has performed the plural marriage without taking consent of the department in spite of the fact that the petitioner has not validly divorced the first wife and taking a very serious view, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present writ petition.

5. The contention of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions as contemplated in Rule 29 of the Rules of 1956 only minor punishment like stopping the increment or other minor punishment can only be awarded. The major punishment of dismissal cannot be awarded in spite of the fact that it has been proved beyond doubt regarding the performing of plural marriage.

6. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Writ petition No. 19034 of 1997 Gaya Deen v. Inspector General of Police decided on 20.12.2004. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulation 29 of the Rules does not provide for major punishment, therefore, the decision of the authority dismissing the services of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

7. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Smt. Raj Bala Sharma v. Sate of U.P. and others, 2009 (2) LBESR 949 (All) and reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 13,15 and 20 which are quoted as under :

13. As far as petitioner’s statement is concerned, she has demonstrated that she had no knowledge about the first marriage of Sri Ajeet Singh. As far as the offence of remarriage (as per Section 494, IPC) is concerned, in the present case the petitioner Smt. Raj Bala Sharma had married after the death of her first husband. Section 494, I.P.C. deals with a person who had a husband or wife living. This charge cannot be fastened on Smt. Ra Bala Sharma, petitioner. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, no marriage between two Hindus could be solemnised if one of them has a husband or wife living. If such marriage is solemnised after the commencement of this Act it would be null and void. The provisions of Sections 494 and 495, I.P.C. shall apply in such cases. Applying this law, the marriage of the petitioner with Sri Ajeet Singh was null and void under law and no punishment could be awarded against her under Section 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. As per Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage may be held as void. The petitioner’s case canno