SUHAWAN PASWAN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 10.10.2006, whereby petitioner has been removed from services and appellate order dated 22.03.2007 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and revisional order dated 27.12.2008, whereby revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and further direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 01.1198 It has been stated that the prior to his appointment the petitioner married to one Yasodha Devi in the year 1967-68 and out of their wedlock one daughter and two sons are there. However, with the consent of her first wife, the petitioner contracted second marriage in the year 199 After passage of time, basing on the application of her first wife along with the certificate of one Dharamvir Mahto, claiming himself to be the member of Panchayat Samitee dated 11.09.2003, a complaint was lodged before Superintendent of police, Jamshedpur that the petitioner has stopped to maintain his first wife and their children. Basing on these allegation, a departmental proceeding was initiated which resulted in passing of impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first wife of the petitioner has never instituted any case under Sec. 498-A or 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and only by taking her L.T.I one complaint has been lodged against him and no opportunity has been afforded to cross-examine the said Dharamvir Mahto. It has further been submitted that petitioner though filed show cause reply denying the allegation levelled against him and submitted that he is maintaining his first wife and their children properly and further he contracted second marriage with the consent of his first wife but that has been disbelieved without any rhyme and reason by the enquiry officer. It has further been submitted that when the first wife of the petitioner was examined on 30.12.2003, she did not speak anything on the specific question that whether she had made any protest when the petitioner brought his second wife or did she ever make any complaint in writing. Petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the specific ground of parity and contended that in the case of one Rajwali Rai, who also contracted second marriage during the life time of first wife only the punishment of 'Nindan' (Annexure 10) has been passed. Similarly, in the case of Gopal Paswan, only 'forfeiture of salary' for one year has been passed and further in the case of one Arvind Pandey, he has been awarded punishment of 'reduction of pay-scale with cumulative effect'. But, in the case of petitioner extreme punishment has been awarded. It has further been submitted that after removal from services, since the petitioner failed to pay maintenance to his first wife, she moved before Family Court, Patna for ad-interim maintenance, which was allowed vide order dated 106.2006, since the petitioner is out of service, hence, it was not possible to deduct the salary of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that having left with no alternative, the first wife of the petitioner sworn an affidavit that they are now staying together and the allegation made against the petitioner was not written by her.