By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri S.P. Mishra and learned Standing Counsel Sri Pushkar Baghel, appearing for respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952 against the impugned order dated 31.7.2012 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1343 (S/S) of 2004.

3. The appellant-petitioner, a police constable, has been punished pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, being remarried to another lady without seeking permission of the state Government in pursuance to U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (in short ‘1956 Rules’). The factum of remarriage by the appellant-petitioner seems to be not disputed. The appellant-petitioner also does not dispute that he has remarried himself in spite of the fact that his first wife survives.

4. The appellant-petitioner was married to one Smt. Sunita, daughter of Shri Raghuwar Tiwari according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1991. Since wedlock of his first wife, he could not get child for almost 11 years, hence he again married to another lady. Feeling aggrieved, first wife submitted a complaint to D.I.G., Lucknow on 11.7.2001 with the allegation that the appellant-petitioner has solemnized second marriage with another lady, namely Smt. Deep Mala, without divorcing her and also threatened to kill her and her parents. On account of ill-treatment due to remarriage by the appellant-petitioner, the first wife has gone back to her parental house (maika). The departmental enquiry was initiated, and finding has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant-petitioner has remarried to another lady during lifetime of his first wife. The disciplinary authority has awarded major penalty of dismissal from service. Appeal and revision preferred by the appellant-petitioner were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred a Writ Petition No. 1343 S/S of 2004 before this Court, which has been dismissed by Hon’ble Single Judge by the impugned order, which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

5. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that under compelling circumstances, he had remarried to another lady, so that he can have child to carry on social need. It is further submitted by appellant-petitioner’s counsel that the marriage solemnized was perfectly in accordance to the provisions contained in sub-section (ii)(b) of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further submits that in any case the punishment awarded to the appellant-petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct. He relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court dated 22.3.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25871 of 2009 ‘Pancham Giri v. State of U.P. and others’ by Hon’ble Single Judge. In this case, Hon’gle Single Judge had remanded the matter to the authorities, relying upon the judgment in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983 (2) SCC 442, to take a fresh decision with the finding that the dismissal from service is disproportionate to his misconduct.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further submits that some of the reasons recorded in the impugned order are not sustainable and observation has been made without going through the records. Such argument does not seem to be available to the appellant-petitioner for the reason that the factum of remarriage has not been disputed. Once, the misconduct is admitted, then there is no option with the authorities except to award punishment in accordance to law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the judgment in Union of India and another v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that punishment awarded to the delinquent employee on account of second marriage call for no interference by the Court. Interference of the Court under Article 226 is limited to the deficiency in