S JOTHIMANI Vs. DIRECTOR MOTOR VEHICLES MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Blacksmith in the Government Automobile Workshop at Hasthampatti, Salem. He filed Original Application No.5504 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order dated 1.6.2000 passed by the 1st respondent, namely Director, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Chennai, by which the 1st respondent imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Even though the order had stated that the petitioner had right to appeal to the State Government within 60 days, the petitioner did not avail the alternate remedy provided under the Rules. On the contrary, in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal in paragraph 7, he had declared that he had not filed any alternate remedy under the relevant Rules and he also filed an application in M.A.No.5389 of 2000 to waive the alternate remedy.

(2.) THE Tribunal admitted the Original Application and also granted an interim stay on 29.11.2000. A Vacate Stay Application was filed. In the vacate stay application, the Tribunal curiously recorded that the petitioner was charged on the ground that he has got married for the second time without prior permission of the Government and the Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules provides for an appropriate permission of the Government to be obtained for contracting second marriage. THE Tribunal did not vacate the interim order and made the Stay absolute. This finding of the Tribunal is startling.

(3.) THE facts leading to the termination of the petitioner are as follows: (i) THE petitioner while he was working in the 2nd respondent workshop filed a nomination in the name of one J.Amuda claiming to be his wife on 11.8.1986 so as to avail the Family Benefit Scheme. Subsequently, he filed another nomination to include the name of J.Lakshmi on 24.4.1990 for the Provident Fund Scheme. In view of the filing of two nominations in the name of two different wives, the petitioner was asked to give his explanation. THE petitioner on 28.9.1992 gave a reply requesting further time for giving explanation. Since he failed to submit his explanation, once again he was reminded to submit explanation. In the letter dated 18.1.1993, the petitioner informed that after consulting the elders in the family, he can arrive a conclusion only through the court and he should be given time to obtain the orders of the Court and submit the same along with explanation. Even after three years, as the petitioner did not submit explanation, the further time was given. (ii) In the meanwhile, the alleged second wife of the petitioner J.Lakshmi sent a legal notice through an advocate that after six months of joining Government service, the first wife Amudha (who is none other than her elder sister) was eloped with one Thoongappan and also married him in the year 1987. THErefore, Lakshmi is the only legally wedded wife and the whereabouts of Amuda are not known. Since there was no marriage existing between Amudha and the petitioner Jothimani, the Department was directed to remove the name of the first wife from the Service Register of the petitioner. THE petitioner also submitted a similar representation on 25.3.1996. (iii) THErefore, a charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was framed against the petitioner for having violated Rule 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. In the explanation to the charge memo dated 14.2.1996, he accepted the fact of marriage with one Amudha, who was the first wife and came up with an explanation as she became sick after the first delivery, he was unable to perform marital relationship with that lady and on the basis of repeated requests of his family members and with the consent of his first wife, he married Lakshmi. He also accepted that he was unable to have legal divorce from the first wife and he was very affectionate to her and the second marriage itself was contracted under the pressure from the 1st wife. THE Department did not accept the story put up by the petitioner. THErefore, an enquiry officer was appointed, namely the Regional Deputy Director, Salem. (iv) THE enquiry officer after conducting enquiry on 28.10.1998 submitted a report and he found that the charges against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner's explanation was called for and the petitioner at that stage took up the plea that the Government has passed orders granting permission to marry the second time and enclosed a Government Order to that effect. But, this explanation of the petitioner was not accepted by the Department and the Department had rightly held that the question of prior permission of the Government for contracting second marriage will arise only if there is a personal obligation and not otherwise and having found that the petitioner has contravened Rule 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, it was found that the petitioner has committed the offence of bigamy and therefore in view of the proved misconduct, he was dismissed from service.