In departmental proceedings against a member of a disciplined force, evidence such as wedding documentation and official police verification reports are sufficient to establish the charge of plural marriage, provided the principles of natural justice are observed and the enquiry procedure is followed.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.V. Prasad

Counsel for Respondents : Mrs. Anjali Agarwal,

Learned SC for Central Govt.

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in No.P.VIII-17/2000-5-EC-2 dated 22.02.2001, as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent in No.RX-III-7/2001-ESTT-3 dated 04.05.2001, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages.

2. Heard Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anjali Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force on 04.12.1990 as a Cook in 100Bn, Nagpur Centre, Nagpur. In his entire service, there were no adverse remarks against him except the impugned orders. The petitioner was removed from service after the 3rd respondent conducted a departmental enquiry, issuing a memorandum of charges along with statements of articles, alleging that he committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Sec 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949. In that, it is alleged that he contracted one Ms. Sangita D/o Janrao Gawai, and married her, while he was already married and was living with his legally wedded wife, Smt. Sangeeta alias Pradhya D/o Ajabrao Bondaji Wankhade, without getting a divorce from her.

(b) The petitioner’s marriage had taken place with Sangeeta alias Pradhya on 30.03.1997. Later, she left the house, and their divorce was finalized on 10.04.2000. Thereafter, his maternal uncle, Janrao Gawai, sent his daughter, Sangeeta, to his house to look after and care for the petitioner’s aged parents, as the petitioner was in Central Government service and posted to different places across the country. The said Sangeeta is actually the petitioner’s maternal uncle's daughter. The said Sangita alleged that the marriage had taken place between them on 09.09.1998 and on the said false plea, she filed a case u/s 125 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner. The J.M.F.C., Anjangaon Surji, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.159/99 on 16.02.2002 passed the order granting maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the complainant Sangeeta. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, which was set aside.

(c) The Departmental enquiry conducted by the Commandant as the Enquiry Officer is erroneous and the finding therein is perverse and far from the actual truth. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding without conducting a detailed enquiry or considering the petitioner’s version. The 3rd respondent did not provide a proper opportunity to the petitioner, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr.Rev.No.10/2002 dated 24.08.2004. It was observed that the marriage was recorded in the Gram Panchayat records by Sangeeta based only on the statement of the complainant’s brother, without the presence of either the complainant or the petitioner. This shows that the marriage was recorded without any substantial proof with a mala fide intention to create false documents to trap the petitioner and to grab his property. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave a clear finding that the Gram Panchayat record cann