O R D E R

The punishment of compulsory retirement, affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as Head Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 20.05.1989. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and posted at Department of Atomic Energy at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu. During the year 1991, when the writ petitioner was a bachelor, he nominated his brother's wife Smt.Kalawati Devi and her two sons, namely, Radhakrishna Rai and Jagnarayan Rai as his nominees to receive his terminal benefits in the event of his death.

3. In March 2002, the petitioner married a widow namely Smt.Gayatri Devi, who was a Cook/Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). A son born out of the wedlock, namely, Pawan Kumar Rai. In the year 2004, the petitioner gave a fresh nomination, nominating Smt.Gayatri Devi as his wife and his son Pawan Kumar Rai.

Thus the earlier nomination of the writ petitioner stands cancelled or superseded.

4. The respondents issued a charge sheet dated 05.11.2011 containing two charges. The first article of charge against the writ petitioner was that during the lifetime of his wife Smt.Kalawati Devi, the petitioner married another lady, namely Smt.Gayatri Devi, which is in violation of the Rule 21(2) of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964. The second charge is that the petitioner had given a wrong and contradictory information on 28.06.2002 while making changes in the Nomination Form already furnished by him on 14.12.1991.

5. The Nomination Form submitted by the writ petitioner on

14.12.1991 reveals that the name of the wife of the writ petitioner has been mentioned as Smt.Kalawati Devi. Therefore, the Department for all purposes treated the said Smt.Kalawati Devi as his wife from the date of nomination. However, during the year 2004, the petitioner revised his nomination by stating that he married Smt.Gayatri Devi. Thus, the Department drew an inference and framed the charges.

6. The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges, by stating that Smt.Kalawati Devi is his brother's wife and mistakenly he has mentioned her name and her children in the first nomination along with the name of his parents. The petitioner had no intention to furnish false information and in order to ensure that the service benefits in the event of his death is to be settled, he has mentioned the name of his brother's wife Smt.Kalawati Devi and therefore, it was a mistaken entry and accordingly requested for exoneration from the charges.

7. The Disciplinary Authority not satisfied with the explanations, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer made a finding that the first charge is held not proved and the second charge is held proved. Based on the second charge, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that as far as the first charge is concerned, the Department could not prove that the said Smt.Kalawati Devi is the first wife of the writ petitioner and he married Smt.Gayatri Devi as his second wife. However, the petitioner could establish that the said Smt.Kalawati Devi is his brother's wife and therefore, the Enquiry Officer formed an opinion and made a finding that the first charge is held not proved. Regarding the second charge, it is consequential to the first charge and therefore, imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement is excessive and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

9. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the petitioner knowi