P K NAGARAJ Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR NEKRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Counsel for the respondent remains absent though the matter is called out both in the morning and in the afternoon Sessions.

(2.) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner over again. It is the petitioner's case that he was appointed as a Security Guard in the year 1980. He was issued with a charge-memo to state that he had married for the second time during the life time of his legally wedded wife in the year 2001 and that since he had not divorced his wife in the first instance, the second marriage was void and was in violation of the Disciplinary Regulations of the respondent-Corporation. Articles of charge were also framed in this regard. The petitioner had replied to the same. It was his case that his wife was suffering from mental illness, from the date of marriage and that he did not lead a normal life with her and she was mentally handicapped and was duly certified in this regard. It is the petitioner's case that he had to take care of his wife as she was not capable of doing so herself and it is at the instance of his father-in-law that the petitioner had married his sister-in-law, namely, the sister of his wife. This was to solve two situations; one, to provide him a marital life and secondly, to also take care of his invalid wife since she was mentally handicapped. It is in this situation that he had married and would seek to question the authority of the respondent to initiate action against the petitioner in this regard. He would submit that the respondent had conducted an enquiry into the circumstances above referred and since the enquiry officer had reported that the petitioner had in fact married for the second time during the life time of his wife, who was not divorced, the respondent had proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal. The same was challenged by way of an appeal which was also dismissed by the second respondent and it is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner would argue at length to contend that though it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had wedded for the second time, the order of dismissal was not warranted by way of punishment