RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-2 dated 16.10.2001 whereby the services of the petitioner has been removed. The order under challenge in also Annexure (P-4) and Annexure (P-5) whereby the two appeals that the petitioner had preferred have been rejected by the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 vide their orders dated 12.12.2001 and 29.01.2002 respectively.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the petitioner was issued with a charge- sheet on 22.05.2001 alleging that the petitioner has committed misconduct under the services rules in as much as the petitioner has entered into the second marriage when the first wife was alive and there was no legal separation or divorce taken place from the first wife. From the records it does not appear that petitioner has submitted any reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was convened in which the petitioner also had participated and subsequently the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 16.10.2001 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner immediately preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3 who in turn rejected the same on 12.12.2001. Against the same, the petitioner again preferred the Mercy appeal before respondent No. 2, Director General of Police wherein also the petitioner could not succeed and the same stood rejected vide order dated 29.04.2002 Annexure (P-5) . It is these three orders which are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner in the instant case is that firstly the act on the part of the petitioner is not something which is serious for terminating him from service. It only is violation of conduct rules and therefore the petitioner could had been given lesser punishment other than that of removal from service. It was further the contention of the petitioner that respondent authorities particularly the disciplinary authority has not properly appreciated the fact that in the departmental enquiry the petitioner had specifically stated that he had been subjected to coercion and pressure by the villagers as also by the complainant which led him to enter into the forceful marriage. Therefore, it cannot be said a marriage with free consent rather it is a case where the marriage has occurred under the compulsion. It was further the contention of the petitioner that even otherwise the petitioner is tribal and therefore he is under customs entitled for entering into more than one marriage as per the tribal customs and this as such would not amount to a misconduct and therefore also the impugned orders are bad in law.