VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that an appropriate order be passed in this letters patent appeal. The court did ask the counsel whether he would like an order on a serious note or a lighter note? The hint apparently was not taken. Undaunted a bigamous husband has no regard for the law and would like to receive a prophylactic guard from the High Court to give him immunity for all times to come and make a laughing -stock out of the High Court.

(2.) THE court wonders if this was the responsibility of the lawyers to advise on such causes between the temptation of bigamy and continuing amorous adventures. One man, two women and a macho misadventure should not have been advised to come to the High Court to take a seal of approval to licentious affairs with two women and claim a prize as a government job for yet more affairs.

(3.) WHEN his father died on a Class IV post, he applied for a job as a compassionate appointment. He faced a situation when the department concerned confronted him with an issue that he has married twice and under government regulations he would immediately come within the mischief of the Rule known as Bihar Government Servants ' Conduct Rules, 1976. The case of the State was that if a government servant marries again during the subsistency of a marriage, then the law does not permit bigamy. The government views such adulterous relationship as misconduct, with dismissal from service as penalty, criminal offence apart.