DESA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is prematurely retired by an order dated 22 -10 -1984 for having married a second woman during the subsistence of his first marriage without the permission of the authorities concerned, which was not permissible under the rules. Show cause notice is said to have been served under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, prior to the issurance of the impugned order. Petitioner challenges the said order in this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER asserts that respondent No: 2 had issued a show cause notice to him for having married a second wife during the life time of his first wife. In reply to the said show cause notice petitioner is said to have stated that he had not contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. On receipt of the reply from the petitioner respondent No : 2 is said to have issued the impugned order without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he had married one Joginder Kaur with whom he could not continue the matrimonial relations. Petitioner there after sought dissolution of the said marriage and application was made before the competent Court at Amritsar under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from which exparte decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and said Joginder Kaur was granted. During the summer of 1984 petitioner had sought permission for having a family quarter from the respondent No. 2 as his sister who was ailing was to stay with the petitioner. Petitioner denied having contracted second marriage during the subsistence of the first wife and the impugned order is said to have been issued without any inquiry.

(3.) IN their reply affidavit the respondents have stated that the petitioner had submitted an application in which he had stated that he had already married. The department acted on his admission in view of CCS (Conduct) Rules 21 read with BSF Rule 7 and retired him after following the procedure of issuing show cause notice. In reply to show cause notice petitioner is said to have forwarded consent from his first wife along with the reply which he submitted. The consent was attested by an Executive Magistrate in Ajnala dated 15 -9 -1983. Under Hindu Law wife could give any consent to her husband to marry second time. That time he had not obtained any judgment from any court. It was in October, 1984 that the petitioner had produced the judgment of the Addl. District Judge Amritsar which would show that the -petitioner was living in adultery and only legalised his second marriage on 30 -4 -1984 otherwise his earlier application to the department saying that he had already married cannot be reconciled with his later conduct. Petitioner was not able to explain his earlier application of July, 1983 in which he had made a confession that he had already married second time. Petitioner is said to have approached some Civil Court at Bandipora, therefore, he cannot seek any relief in the writ petition. Petitioners conduct is said to be suspect on moral grounds which would not entitle him to seek any relief. The equities are against the petitioner.