RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE first petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer as under:"for the reasons stated and in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Hon ble court in the interests of justice be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari. (a) call for the records relating to and connected with the judgment dt. 12-7-1999 in O. A. No. 167/98 on the file of the Hon ble Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same. (b) further declare that the order passed by the Appellate Authority no. TD/eg/appeal/dar/96/4, dated 10-2-1997 as bad in law and unsustainable; (c) consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as entitled to all benefits withoutany regard being it had to theproceedings dated 10-2-1997 of the appellate authority by granting all attendant benefits duly treating the period of his absence from duty as period spent on duty and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

( 2 ) THE writ affidavit was filed by one Doddi Appa Rao i. e. , the 1 st petitioner herein, with an averment that he was recruited as a Technician (Phones) on 31-3-1969. Subsequently he was promoted as a Technical Supervisor on 31-9-1981 and he was further promoted as a Senior Technical Supervisor on 1-7-1998.

( 3 ) IT is the further case of the 1st petitioner that he was married to one suseelalias Simhachalamon 26-3-1967 in accordance with caste, customs and traditions. It is the further case of the first petitioner that he was married even prior to joining the service with the Government of India. The marriage subsisted for more than two decades. Then Smt Suseela developed certain set backs in health running her incompetent to continue the matrimonial relations. Therefore, after taking treatment when all attempts failed, the first petitioner divorced his wife according to the custom prevalent in that community on 30-7-1979. Thereafter, the first petitioner married after obtaining the divorce from the first wife with one Venkata Ramalakshmi on 10-10-1979.

( 4 ) NOW it is the case of the first petitioner that the then District Manager, rajahmundry has drawn a minimum charge stating that the first petitioner contracted the marriage for the second time without obtaining legal divorce from his first wife and has violated Rule 21 (2) of CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1964. It is further pleaded that the first petitioner filed a detailed statement on 8-12-1992 denying the allegations levelled against him. An enquiry was cond ucted and the first petitioner was awarded punishment with compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the first petitioner filed an application before the General Manager, Telecom District, Rajahmundry. The General Manager considered the entire matter and passed the order in his proceedings dated 10-12-1997 holding that the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement against the first petitioner is unsustainable and consequently he set aside the same, but imposed punishment of pay by two stages with cumulative effect for a period of one year and ordered the period of his absence from the duties since the date of compulsory retirement till the resumption of duty as extraordinary leave without break in service. The first petitioner reported and joined service back on 1-12-1999 (sic. 1998 ). Aggrieved by the said order, the first peti tioner filed O. A. No. 167 of 1998 before the Centra I Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The said O. A. , was disposed of on 12-7-1999 with an observation that:"we find that even the reduced punishment meted out to the applicant appears to be harsh especially when the authorities had not acted in time. The punishment of the appellate authority will affect his pension a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document