Revisional authority cannot annul completed departmental enquiry to start fresh major penalty proceedings; limited to enhancement via show cause. Dismissal for second marriage shockingly disproportionate; employer defers bigamy proof to pending criminal court.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

DATES AND EVENTS

2. The dates and events are undisputed before us. For ready reference, we summarise the dates and events hereunder:

(a) The Petitioner was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Railway Police Force (R.P.F.) under the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Bilaspur Division of the South Eastern Railway, on 22.07.2006.

(b) The Petitioner was transferred to the Central Railway under the Divisional Security Commissioner, Solapur, at Gulbarga on health grounds, on 23.12.2006.

(c) The Petitioner was transferred to the Mumbai Division under Respondent No. 3 at LTT, on 17.04.2019.

(d) On 02.12.2020, the Petitioner was medically de-categorised and subsequently absorbed as a Junior Clerk, and was posted at Kalyan under the immediate administrative control of Respondent No. 4, Assistant Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Kalyan.

(e) The Petitioner got legally married on 28.04.2008. The Petitioner developed a marital discord and both got involved in litigation against each other. During the subsistence of the first marriage, it is alleged by the first wife that the Petitioner married a lady namely Priya Kamble. This is neither admitted, nor denied by him, in this Petition. He has, however, denied the second marriage in RCC No. 95 of 2022, filed by his wife under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC), alleging bigamy, before the Court at Kurundwad, Kolhapur. The said case is pending.

(f) On 01.09.2021, the Petitioner received a chargesheet under Rule SF- 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1968). Two charges were levelled against the Petitioner, which read as under:

‘1. A complaint was filed against you by your wife Shilpa Santosh Chavan dated on 30 11 2016 at the police station Kurundwad for misbehaving with her whose information you kept hidden from the department, this act of your's despite your working on a responsible post was an unwarranted attempt to conceal and mislead the administration.

2.After having solemnised marriage with your wife Smt Shilpa Santosh Chavan, according to Hindu rites and custom you have married a second time in respect of which your first wife has lodged a complaint with the department. That as per Hindu rites and customs and since you have not obtained divorce from your first wife your second marriage is against the railway administration and indecent and inhuman under Hindu rites and customs.’

(g) The Petitioner was charged with violating Rule 21 (2) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1966). For ready reference, Rule 21 (2) is reproduced as under:

‘21.Restrictions Regarding Marriage.-(1) No railway servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having spouse living: and,

(2) No railway servant, having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person.

(3) A railway servant who has married or married a person other than of Indian Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government. Provided that the government may permit a railway servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that-

(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal la