AFROZ KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking the quashing of the order dated 19.04.2008 by which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against the petitioner who was a Constable in U.P. Civil Police. The second order dated 19.01.2009 is the order rejecting the petitioner's appeal. The third order is dated 23.04.2010 by which the petitioner's revision has also been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner was a Constable in U.P. Civil Police. He was married to one Smt. Shahroz and had one son aged 9 years through that marriage. During the existence of the first marriage, he entered into a second marriage with one Smt. Rubina Bano from whom he had no issue. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7.4.2007 on the ground of having contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage in spite of the fact that he was a government servant and could not have contracted a second marriage without the permission of Competent Authority. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 18.5.2007. An inquiry was held and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer the petitioner was dismissed from service by impugned order dated 19.4.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 19.01.2009. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision under Rule-23 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 which was also dismissed by the third impugned order dated 23.4.2010. The petitioner in this writ petition has nowhere denied the fact that he had not obtained the permission of the Competent Authority before entering into a second marriage with Smt. Rubina Bano. It is also not disputed that the second marriage was contracted by the petitioner during the subsistence of his first marriage with Smt. Shahroz. Therefore, the charge against the petitioner has not been disputed by him anywhere either in the departmental proceeding or even before this Court. The only ground taken in the writ petition is that the punishment of dismissal from service is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner. It is alleged that the Rules of procedure have also not been followed, but the allegation has not been substantiated by averments in the writ petition or documents on record.

(3.) I have heard Sri Kamal Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.