JUDGMENT : 

The petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the Police Force, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 31-3-1992 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority dated 22-7-1992 and 31-3-2005 respectively, by which the aforesaid punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been affirmed.

2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner joined services in the Police Department as a Constable on 20-1-1967. At the time of joining service the petitioner was married to one Phoolmati and her name was, accordingly, recorded in the service record relating to the family details of the petitioner. In the year 1980, on account of constant illness of his wife Phoolmati and on her express agreement in writing, the petitioner kept one Sakun Bai with him without disturbing the status of Smt. Phoolmati as his legally married wife. A copy of the agreement executed by Smt. Phoolmati in this regard is filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-l. The aforesaid arrangement also stipulated that the land of the petitioner in village Doli shall be exclusively that of Smt. Phoolmati in order to cater for her maintenance.

3. That on the basis of a complaint and a certificate dated 16-6-1991, Annexure P-2, of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Doli alleging that the petitioner had committed bigamy and he had not maintained his first wife, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7-9-1991. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet on 7-9-1991. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was instituted and the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 4-3-1992. A show cause notice along with a copy of the report was served upon the petitioner on 12-3-1992 to which the petitioner filed a reply on 18-3-1992 and, thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur by order dated 31-3-1992 imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner by recording a finding of guilt against him.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the punishment imposed upon him, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur, which was dismissed by order dated 22-7-1992 and the revision filed by the petitioner thereafter was also rejected by the Director General of Police by order dated 27-11-1992.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that the inquiry, conducted against him, was not in accordance with the provisions of the Police Regulations and that he was not given due and proper opportunity to defend himself before passing the impugned order of punishment. Additionally, the petitioner has submitted that though the charge levelled against him was under Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules which relates to bigamy, the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order imposing punishment has categorically stated and held that no charge under Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules is made out as the petitioner has not entered into a second marriage in spite of which the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner by treating his act to be a misconduct even though his act does not fall within any of the misconducts enumerated in the rules. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

6. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are vehemently opposed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State who submits that the petitioner has admittedly kept Sakun Bai with him who is living with him as his second wife and in such circumstances no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the authority or the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the act of the petitioner falls within the category of a misconduct and, therefore, he has rightly been co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document