Customary divorce invalid under Hindu Marriage Act unless proven immemorial and reasonable; deemed service by registered post allows ex parte enquiry; criminal acquittal does not bar disciplinary action on preponderance of probability.

ORDER

(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

This OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act seeking the following relief:-

"to call for the records relating to the proceedings No. B2/5/MO/Digs dated 30.03.2019 issued by the second Respondent which has been confirmed by proceedings No. VIG/15-02/19-20/MA dated 30.10.2019 issued by the first respondent and Appellate Authority and quash them as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and disproportionate and grant all consequential benefits as may be deemed fit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

2. The applicant's case is that he married one Subbulakshmi on 09.11.1998 even before he was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (Packer) in 1999. But the marriage did not last long and in the year 2002, Subbulakshmi left the matrimonial home and since then they have been living separately. Out of the wedlock two children were born whose custody remained with Subbulakshmi.

3. The applicant claims that he belongs to Hindu Maravar Community Sub Caste Kondaiyar Kottar Community and as per the Community Custom, they both got separated by way of written settlement before the Panchayatdars of the village on 28.08.2009 and he agreed to pay Rs.3500/-per month w.e.f. 01.10.2009, however, as Subbulakshmi filed a petition for maintenance before the Court, he agreed to pay sum of Rs.4500/- per month as maintenance.

4. As his marriage was deemed to have been dissolved as per the customary practice, and due to settlement arrived between him and Subbulakshmi before the Panchayatdars on 28.08.2009, he got into live-in relationship with one Ms. Allirani since 2010. Further, to safeguard his interests, he inadvertently nominated Ms. Allirani and submitted Form-3 on 20.03.2014. Till then, applicant had not changed his earlier nomination made solely in the name of his father.

5. During 2018, on account of his daughter's marriage, Subbulakshmi demanded unreasonable sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for marriage expenses but as he had limited earning, he offered to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for the marriage. Displeased, Subbulakshmi filed complaint before the the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi who directed the All-Women Police Station, Sivakasi to register FIR and take appropriate steps against him for bigamy. However, initiation of FIR on 23.09.2016 was given undue publicity in 'Press' by Subbulakshmi which ultimately engaged the attention of departmental officials and resulted in issuance of charge memo dated 23.11.2016 to him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which contained two articles of charges to the effect that (i) Shri. G. Marimuthu, who was working as Postman, Sivakasi HO entered into and contracted a marriage with a lady named Smt. Allirani on 17.02.2011 while his first wife is still alive and not legally divorced and thus failed to observe Government policy regarding restriction in marriage; and (ii) he suppressed this information of marriage with Smt. Allirani from his employer and furt