JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was appointed on Group 'G' post as an Apprentice in the office of District Development Officer, Bareilly on 08.04.1999. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner married to one Anuraddha Saxena on 24.11.1999, however, the controversy revolves around a second marriage allegedly performed by the petitioner with one Anju Khandelwal who was working with him in the same department. The allegation against the petitioner was to the effect that during the subsistence of first marriage with Anuraddha Saxena, he performed second marriage and, therefore, he committed a misconduct. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner raising the same charges. A reply was submitted by the petitioner, in which, factum of performance of second marriage was denied by him.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that no proper enquiry was conducted and simply after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, alleged enquiry was completed and, later on, by the order impugned dated 04.07.2005, the petitioner was awarded major penalty in terms of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed.

4. The argument of Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner’s wife Anuradha Saxena moved complaints before the department alleging second marriage and there was no evidence on record to substantiate performance of second marriage and commission of alleged offence of bigamy or misconduct on that line, except that before the department, there was a sale deed, by which, certain property was purchased by Anju Khandelwal, in which, she had described herself as wife of the petitioner and the allegation of his wife Anuradha Saxena. It is further contended that even the said error was corrected by way of execution of supplementary deed (titamma). He further submits that departmental enquiry was conducted against Anju Khandelwal also and she was not awarded major punishment but only censure entry was awarded to her by order dated 23.11.2011 which was passed during the pendency of the writ petition and has been brought on record alongwith amendment application. The submission is that once while awarding censure entry to Anju Khandelwal, clear finding has been recorded that no marriage was solemnized in between Anju Khandelwal and the petitioner, the issue that falls for consideration before this Court is that even accepting the fact that Anju Khandelwal had described herself as wife of the petitioner in a sale deed, whether the same itself amounts to sufficient evidence with regard to performance of second marriage by the petitioner during the subsistence of first marriage.

5. Another issue is to the effect that once Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (in short 'the Rules, 1956') clearly provides that, in case, the government servant having a wife contracts another marriage without obtaining permission of the Government, only minor punishment can be awarded in the nature of withholding of increments for three years. Shri Om submits that even this punishment can be awarded only when performance of second marriage is established.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that once the lady had described herself as wife of the petitioner, no further evidence was required as relationship between the husband and wife can be established by placing reliance upon any oral or documentary statement made by the parties to the marriage. He further submits that order passed in case of Anju Khandelwal during the pendency of the writ petition is irrelevant inasmuch as when the punishment was awarded to the petitioner, the said order was not in existence.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that conditions of a valid Hindu marriage are narrated under Section 5 of the Hindu Mar