New Delhi – 110 011.2. The Chairman v. 1. R. Natarajan2. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 03.04.2009CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr. Justice D. HARIPARANTHAMANW.P. No.11215 of 2006andW.P.M.P. No.12754 of 20061. The Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence Production and Supply, DHQ (PO), New Delhi – 110 011.2. The Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata – 1.3. The General Manager, Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu – 643 202, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu.... Petitioners..vs..1. R. Natarajan2. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai.... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the recordsleading to the issue of the order in O.A. No.1010 of 2004 dated01.03.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent, Central AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai and quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr. K. SridharFor Respondent : Mr. S.M. Subramaniam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.K. MISRA, J.)Heard Mr. K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners and Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.1.2. Respondent No.1 was working under the presentpetitioners as an Industrial Worker in Class III. Admittedly, hehad married one Sakuntala and at the time of employment, he hadnominated her as wife for the purpose of pensionary benefits.Subsequently, respondent No.1 changed his nomination and nominatedVeni @ Krishnaveni and described that she was the wife. He had alsonominated the children born through aforesaid Krishnaveni. 3. Subsequently, when the Department discovered suchanomaly and called upon Respondent No.1 to explain, Respondent No.1wrote a letter to the Department stating that he had divorced hisfirst wife Sakuntala in accordance with village customs and hadmarried Krishnaveni thereafter. It was also pointed out by him inthe said letter that a suit for declaration of divorce in respect ofthe first marriage was pending and necessary documents would beforwarded to the Department after disposal of the said suit.4. Thereafter, the departmental Authorities starteddepartmental proceedings on the allegation that respondent No.1 hadentered into a bigamous marriage without seeking any priorpermission. In the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer,after referring to all the materials on record, came to theconclusion that the alleged divorce according to the village customhad not been proved and during the subsistence of the first marriage,the delinquent had entered into a second marriage. The departmentalAuthorities came to the conclusion that the divorce case was stillpending in the Court and the delinquent was yet to obtain legaldivorce and the delinquent, in various nominations, described Veni @Krishnaveni as his wife and therefore the plea that he had nominatedKrishnaveni as his wife under the compulsion could not be accepted.On the basis of the said conclusion, the department imposed thepunishment of compulsory retirement. After exhausting thedepartmental remedy available to him, the first respondent filedOriginal Application No.1010 of 2004 before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. 5. The Tribunal accepted the contention raised by thepresent respondent No.1, by observing that there was no evidence tohold that the delinquent had entered into a contract of marriage with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Krishnaveni though they might have been living together. TheTribunal further observed as follows:-"7. We are not concerned with what happenedto the first marriage and whether the firstmarriage was dissolved by customary divorce. Weare concerned only with the charge that theapplicant had contracted bigamous marriage.Admittedly, Krishnaveni is not having a spouseliving. There is no proof of a contract or amarriage of the applicant with Krishnaveni and,the evidence in this case and the finding is tothe effect that no such marriage had takenplace."The Tribunal further concluded as follows:-"8. So far as Rule 21 of the Conduct Rulesis concerned, entering into a contract ofmarriage with a person having a spouse isrestricted and in this case Krishnaveni is nothaving a spouse living besides it is not possibleto accept the charge framed by the Departmentthat the applicant had entered into a bigamousmarriage. In other words, the charge proceeds asthough the marriage had taken place withoutlegally divorcing the first wife. This, we findis a basis infirmity in the charge as well as thefindings of the Inquiry Officer which has beenaccepted without going into the legal questionraised by the applicant. The findings of theInquiry Officer is perverse, illegal and cannotbe sustained."On the aforesaid basis, the punishment was set aside by theTribunal. Such order is questioned in the present writ petition bythe Department.6. A perusal of the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunalindicates that the Tribunal has not kept in view the scope of Rule 21of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is extracted hereunder :-"21. Restriction regarding Marriage.- (1) NoGovernment servant shall enter into, or contract, amarriage with a person having a spouse living; and(2) No Government servant having a spouse living,shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person;Provided that the Central Government may permit aGovernment servant to enter into, or contract, any suchmarriage as is referred to in clause(1) or clause (2) if it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is satisfied that, -(a) such marriage is permissible under the personallaw applicable to such Government servant and the otherparty to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds for so doing."7. A perusal of the aforesaid rule indicates that a personwho is already married cannot enter into another marriage while thefirst marriage is subsisting. It is of course true that the provisocontemplates regarding taking of permission. The question of takingof permission would arise only where the personal law applicable tothe concerned employee permits bigamous or polygamous marriage.Where the personal law does not permit second marriage duringsubsistence of first marriage, the question of obtaining permissionfrom the Department or otherwise is immaterial and a person enteringinto bigamous marriage in violation of the personal law can be saidto have committed a misconduct. Where bigamous marriage is permittedunder personal law, entering into such bigamous marriage would becomea delinquency, if before entering into such bigamous marriagepermission of the Department has not been obtained. The rulesimilarly contemplates that a Government servant cannot marry anotherperson who is already married.8. The Tribunal, in the present case, was laboring underthe misconception that the marriage with Krishnaveni is of noconsequence as Krishnaveni is not having a spouse living at the timeof marriage with the delinquent. The rule contemplates that anemployee cannot enter into a bigamous marriage and similarly anemployee cannot enter into a marriage with anyone who is alreadymarried.9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submittedthat the delinquent himself had admitted in various correspondenceincluding his forms of nomination that he had married Krishnaveni.However, the Tribunal has completely lost sight of aforesaiddocumentary evidence, when the same had been furnished by thedelinquent himself. 10. The Tribunal also relied upon the decision of theSupreme Court in SMT. PRIYA BALA GHOSH v. SURESH CHANDRA GHOSH (1950-51 annexed as Annexure A-10), wherein the Supreme Court, whileconsidering the proof of second marriage, observed that there must bestrict proof of solemnization of second marriage for imposingconviction relating to bigamy.11. It is no doubt true, as has been held by the SupremeCourt, a strict proof relating to the second marriage is required inorder to sustain conviction for bigamy. However, the principle ofapplying strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal hasmisdirected itself by placing reliance upon the Supreme Court, whichdealt with a criminal case for bigamous marriage. 12. On the other hand, the Tribunal has lost sight of thedelinquent's admission regarding both the marriages. In the letterwritten by the delinquent, he had claimed about the divorce of hisfirst wife according to the village custom and thereafter, he marriedKrishnaveni. However, the delinquent failed to adduce any evidenceon record in support of existence of any such village custom as wellas evidence relating to factum of divorce according to villagecustom. It is not disputed that the civil suit filed by the presentrespondent No.1 relating to alleged divorce has been dismissed.13. In these circumstances, when the delinquent has failedto prove the divorce of the first wife and the delinquent himself hasadmitted the marriage with Krishnaveni, there is no other alternativethan to quash the findings rendered by the Tribunal. Hence, theorder passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by theDepartment is restored. The writ petition stands allowed.Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrardpk/ssa.ToRegistrar,Central Administrative Tribunal,Chennai Bench, Chennai.+1cc to M/s.S.M.Subramaniam,Advocate Sr 12417+1cc to Mr.K.Sridhar, SCGC Sr 11987RSM-II(CO)km/10.6.W.P. No.11215 of 2006 andconnected W.P.M.P.