Writ A. No. 28337 of 2009. Case: Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)

Case NumberWrit A. No. 28337 of 2009
CounselFor Appellant: Kripa Shanker Singh, A.K. Singh and Anil Kumar Aditya, Advs. and For Respondents: C.S.C.
JudgesYashwant Varma, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, 226, 25
Judgement DateMarch 12, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Allahabad (India)

Judgment:

Yashwant Varma, J.

  1. The petitioner seeks to assail the validity of the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 in terms of which he stood dismissed from service in exercise of powers conferred upon the said authority by the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. The aforesaid order of punishment came to be imposed upon the petitioner on culmination of departmental proceedings initiated against him on the charge of having consummated a second marriage without the permission of the appropriate authority. The charge asserted that the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner was in violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956. The order of termination also stood confirmed in appeal by the respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 30.01.2009 and in revision by the respondent No. 4 by his order dated 26.12.2009.

  2. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the record, appear to be that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Civil Police on 01.08.1972. During the course of his career, he rose to become a Head Constable and was drawing salary in the grade of Sub Inspector.

  3. It appears that one Smt. Hausila Devi asserting herself to be the first wife of the petitioner made a complaint to the respondents alleging ill treatment having been meted out to her. It was at this stage that the petitioner having committed the misconduct of bigamy came to light.

  4. Taking cognizance on the complaint made by Smt. Hausila Devi, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2008 for violation of the Rules 1956, referred to above. Finding the reply of the petitioner to the aforesaid show cause notice to be unsatisfactory, a charge sheet dated 25.04.2008 was served upon him and to which a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner on 05.05.2008. Disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner culminated in a report dated 05.06.2008 being submitted by the Enquiry Officer.

  5. It becomes relevant to note here that the Enquiry Officer in the course of those proceedings recorded the statements of the first wife of the petitioner viz., Smt. Hausila Devi as well as his second wife Smt. Geeta Devi.

  6. The first wife of the petitioner in these proceedings made a statement that she had been married to the petitioner in 1965 at a time when he was unemployed and that he subsequently married Smt. Geeta Devi in 1978 with her consent. She further submitted that she had no cause for complaint against the petitioner who makes adequate provisions for her livelihood. The second wife of the petitioner also stated that she had been married to the petitioner in 1978 with the consent of his first wife and that out of wedlock she along with the petitioner was looking after a family comprising of 4 children. The Enquiry Officer while returning a finding that the factum of bigamy stood admitted and proved from the statements of persons who had deposed before him found that the petitioner had not obtained any permission of the appropriate authority and accordingly recommended that three annual increments of the petitioner be stopped.

  7. After receipt of the aforesaid report and the representation of the petitioner in respect thereof, the respondent No. 2 found that the petitioner had not obtained any permission for contracting the second marriage and that his contention that he had obtained such permission from his Platoon Commandant was not liable to be accepted as he was not the appropriate authority under the relevant rules. He accordingly proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner by an order dated 16.10.2008. It is this order, which has been affirmed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in appeal and revision and are impugned in the present writ petition.

  8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is clearly disproportionate inasmuch as in his entire service of 36 years, he was not found guilty of wrong doing or misconduct. He has submitted that his first marriage had occurred at a time when he was only a minor and was studying in Class XI. He has submitted that the petitioner belonging to a poor family was perhaps got married of in terms of the age old custom of child marriage prevailing in the rural areas of the country. He has submitted that the petitioner was only 14 years of age when he was married to Smt. Hausala Devi and that such a marriage was not liable to be countenanced at all. He would contend that in fact the petitioner contracted the second marriage in 1978 on the proposal and with the consent of his first wife. He therefore submitted that the authorities should have taken a lenient view in the matter.

  9. Learned standing counsel opposing the writ petition has however contended that once the factum of bigamy was accepted and admitted to the petitioner, the charge stood fully proved and therefore the respondents rightly dismissed the petitioner from service in the absence of any permission of the appropriate authority. He has submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, who was a member of the police force, could not be termed as disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the fact that the petitioner was only a minor and 14 years of age when he was married of for the first time in 1965 is not disputed. This fact is an embodiment of the age old curse and malady of child marriages, which unfortunately prevailed at the time in our country. This practice was more prevalent in the rural areas of our country, despite the promulgation of legislation to counter such practices. It is also not disputed by the parties that the first wife of the petitioner appeared in the proceedings and in fact admitted the above and also stated that the petitioner entered into the second marriage with...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT