1. This Petition was filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal assailing the validity of the order of disciplinary authority dated 25.2.1999 retiring him compulsorily after a regular departmental inquiry and to assail the orders passed in appeal on 27.3.1999 and in mercy appeal on 11.10.1999. On abolition of the Tribunal, it is received to this Court for final adjudication.

2. It is the case of petitioner that he was recruited as constable on 15.11.1972 in district Jhabua. While he was posted in DRP Line, a notice dated 16.3.1998 was served with the allegation of contracting the another marriage with one Kalawati while his earlier wife Smt. Suganabai is alive, which is in contravention to Rule 22 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter it be referred as "Rules of 1965") however penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year was proposed. The petitioner has not filed the reply due to his ailment, however respondent No.4 by passing the order dated 4.6.1998 cancelled the said show cause notice and decided to hold a regular departmental inquiry to which a charge sheet was issued levelling the following charge :

"Smt. Suganbai niwasi Jhaknawada pratham vivahit patni ke jivit rabte huye Kalawati ko patni ke roop mai rakhkar M.P. Civil Seva Acharan Niyam, 1965 ke para kr. 22 ka ullanghan kama."

3. Petitioner has filed the reply, thereafter an inquiry was conducted by inquiry officer, who has submitted its report Annexure A-9 dated 18.12.1998 and the charge as levelled against petitioner was found proved. After issuing a show cause notice, and on filing the reply, the order dated 25.2.1991 Annexure A-I inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement was passed. The appeal and the mercy appeal preferred by him were rejected vide order dated 27.3.1992 AnnexureA-2 and the order dated 11.10.1999 Annexure A-3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the allegations as alleged in the charge sheet does not constitute any misconduct in view of the language of Rule 22 (1) of the Rules of 1965. Counsel further submits that as alleged petitioner had performed two marriages prior to commencement into the employment, which is apparent from the statements of both the wives and petitioner, recorded during inquiry. Bare reading of rule 22 makes it obligatory to an employee to obtain permission from the Government prior to contracting the another marriage. In the present case, both the marriages were performed prior to entering into the in employment by petitioner, he might not have any occasion to seek prior permission. Thus the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are not in conformity to the rules and liable to be quashed. In view of the said submissions, prayer is made to allow the petition and to forthwith reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

5. On the other hand, respondents have filed their reply and contends that petitioner was having two wives while under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1965, the Government servant may have only one wife alive. On asking explanation, it is falsely disclosed, that he is having only one wife namely Kalawati @ Suganabai, his explanation was not found satisfactory. However a notice to show cause was issued, why the penalty, of withholding one increment for one year may not be imposed, but because reply was not filed by him, therefore, it was cancelled and the respondent No.4 has decided to hold a regular departmental inquiry on the said charge. In the departmental inquiry the statement of the first wife Suganabai @ Kalawati and second wife Kalawati @ Guddi were recorded both have admitted that they are the wive of petitioner, however, inquiry officer has recorded the finding of contracting the another marriage by petitioner without prior permission. It is further contended that as per enquiry' report the charge was found proved, however, the disciplinary authority ha