UNION OF INDIA Vs. R NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 was working under the present petitioners as an Industrial Worker in Class III. Admittedly, he had married one Sakuntala and at the time of employment, he had nominated her as wife for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Subsequently, respondent No.1 changed his nomination and nominated Veni @ Krishnaveni and described that she was the wife. He had also nominated the children born through aforesaid Krishnaveni.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the departmental Authorities started departmental proceedings on the allegation that respondent No.1 had entered into a bigamous marriage without seeking any prior permission. In the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer, after referring to all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the alleged divorce according to the village custom had not been proved and during the subsistence of the first marriage, the delinquent had entered into a second marriage. The departmental Authorities came to the conclusion that the divorce case was still pending in the Court and the delinquent was yet to obtain legal divorce and the delinquent, in various nominations, described Veni @ Krishnaveni as his wife and therefore the plea that he had nominated Krishnaveni as his wife under the compulsion could not be accepted. On the basis of the said conclusion, the department imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. After exhausting the departmental remedy available to him, the first respondent filed Original Application No.1010 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.