RAMA SHANKAR RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 namely Smt. Shanti Devi and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, learned G.P. - II who appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Commandant, Bihar Military Police - 04, Bokaro Steel City) as contained at Annexure - 5, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the authorities to reinstate him in service. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the Bihar Military Police, Bokaro in 1986. His wife namely the respondent No. 5 (Smt. Shanti Devi), filed a complaint alleging bigamy and cruelty and accordingly demanded maintenance. On the basis of such a complaint having been made, the petitioner received a chargesheet dated 02.11.1996 as contained at Annexure - 1 wherein the petitioner was informed that he had committed misconduct on account of having married for the second time during the lifetime of the first wife and that too, without having obtained permission from the Government and that he was not maintaining his wife.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 wherein they have stated that the petitioner, is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as during the lifetime of his first wife he married again without sanction of the appropriate authority in violation of Rule 707(A) of the Police Manual, as also in violation of Rule 23 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. These respondents have further stated that against the order of dismissal, the petitioner had also filed a representation before the D.I.G. Military Police which was also rejected on 14.04.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Additional Director and without waiting for the result of the appeal, the petitioner should not have filed the instant Writ Application. The respondents have further justified the passing of the order of the dismissal and they have stated at paragraph 10, that neither the compromise petition nor the dismissal of the maintenance application filed by her can affect the charges framed for departmental action.