Kamaluddin Khan v. Counsel for

04.04.1999. Thereafter, Smt. Rubina Khan became chronically ill for past several years and she was undergoing treatment at different place both at Gorakhpur at All India Medical Institute and on account of chronic illness of Ms. Rubina Khan and with her consent the petitioner solemnized another marriage with Smt. Nargis Begum. A complaint came to be lodged against the writ petitioner before the appointing authority with an allegation that the writ petitioner had violated the provisions contained 2 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025 under Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1959 and pursuant whereto on 20.09.2025, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur proceeded to suspend the writ petitioner in contemplation of the inquiry. Thereafter, a charge sheet also came to be served upon the writ petitioner.

5. Questioning the suspension order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the fourth respondent, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner is not shy to face the inquiry but he submits that in view of sub- rule (3) of Rule 29 of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, in case of second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage, the only punishment which can be imposed is withholding of increment for three years which even in fact is a minor punishment and, thus, the suspension cannot be resorted as major punishment cannot be imposed against the writ petitioner. Thus, he submits that the suspension order be set aside and leaving it open for the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental proceedings and the writ petitioner shall participate in the departmental proceedings.

7. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the writ petitioner has solemnized second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage which is a clear cut violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 and, thus, the writ petitioner is exposed to departmental proceedings, however, he submits that in view of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 29 of the 1956 Rules, only minor punishment can be imposed and according to him, the suspension order be set aside, however, leaving it open for the disciplinary authority to conclude the inquiry.

8. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

9. Apparently, the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 governs the service conditions of the writ petitioner. Rule 4 reads as under.- 3 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025 "4.Suspension - (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servants or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule: Provided also that in the case Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. (2)A Government Servant in respect of, or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge, which is connected with his position as a Government Servant or which is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or which involves moral turpitude, is pending, may at the discretion of the appointing Authority or the Authority to whom the power of suspension has been delegated under these rules, be placed under suspension until termination of all proceedings relating to that charge. (3)(a) A Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed or as the case may be, continued to be place under suspension by an order of the Authority Competent to suspend, with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether the detention is on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours. (b)The aforesaid Government Servant shall after the release from the custody, inform in writing to the Competent Authority about his detention and may also make representation against the deemed suspension. The competent authority shall after considering the representation in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provision contained in this rule, pass appropriate order continuing the deemed suspension from the date of release from custody or revoking or modifying it. (4) Government Servant shall be deemed to have placed or, as the case may be, continued to be under suspension by an order of the Authority Competent to suspend under these rules, with effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of a conviction for an offence he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction." 4 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025

10. The first proviso of Rule 4 itself stipulates that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of there being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. Further, Rule 3 defines minor penalty, Rule 3 in extenso is quoted hereinunder.- "3. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the government servants; Minor Penalties (i) Censure (ii) Withholding of increments for a specified period. (iii) Stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of order. (v) Fine in case of persons in holding Group D posts. Provided that the amount of such fine shall in no case exceed twenty five percent of the months pay in which the fine is imposed. Major Penalties (1) Withholding of increments with cumulative effect; (ii) Reduction to a lower post or grade time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; (iii) Removal from the service which does not disqualify from future employment; (iv) Dismissal from the service which disqualify from future employment."

11. Importantly, stoppage of withholding of increments for a specific period is a minor punishment and withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. Since the ultimate punishment which could be imposed, in case, charges against the writ petitioner would be minor, thus, resorting of suspension in the facts and circumstances of the case would not be justified. Rule 29 of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 came up for consideration in umpteen decisions namely Writ-A No. 21010 of 2011 (Kuber Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and in the case of Prabhat Bhatnagar Vs. State of U.P. : (2023) 9 ADJ 615. Further Rule 29 of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 reads as under.- "29. Bigamous marriages.- (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall 5 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025 contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. (2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government. (3) The minimum punishment to be imposed for contravention of sub-rule (1) or sub- rule (2) shall be the withholding of increments for three years."

12. A bare look of Rule 29 of the 1956 rules would reveal that no Government servant who has a wife living shall contract marriage without first obtaining permission of the Government notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under personal law for the time being applicable to him.

13. As already noticed, at best taking the case of the respondents at face value minor punishment could have been imposed, thus, the suspension order is not justified.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms.- The order dated 20.09.2025 suspending the writ petitioner passed by the fourth respondent, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur suspendng the writ petitioner is set aside. The passing of the order will not preclude the respondents from holding departmental proceedings which is permissible under law against the writ petitioner.

15. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

16. The instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A' and 'B'. October 28, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

04.04.1999. Thereafter, Smt. Rubina Khan became chronically ill for past several years and she was undergoing treatment at different place both at Gorakhpur at All India Medical Institute and on account of chronic illness of Ms. Rubina Khan and with her consent the petitioner solemnized another marriage with Smt. Nargis Begum. A complaint came to be lodged against the writ petitioner before the appointing authority with an allegation that the writ petitioner had violated the provisions contained 2 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025 under Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1959 and pursuant whereto on 20.09.2025, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur proceeded to suspend the writ petitioner in contemplation of the inquiry. Thereafter, a charge sheet also came to be served upon the writ petitioner.

5. Questioning the suspension order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the fourth respondent, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur, the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner is not shy to face the inquiry but he submits that in view of sub- rule (3) of Rule 29 of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, in case of second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage, the only punishment which can be imposed is withholding of increment for three years which even in fact is a minor punishment and, thus, the suspension cannot be resorted as major punishment cannot be imposed against the writ petitioner. Thus, he submits that the suspension order be set aside and leaving it open for the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental proceedings and the writ petitioner shall participate in the departmental proceedings.

7. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the writ petitioner has solemnized second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage which is a clear cut violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 and, thus, the writ petitioner is exposed to departmental proceedings, however, he submits that in view of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 29 of the 1956 Rules, only minor punishment can be imposed and according to him, the suspension order be set aside, however, leaving it open for the disciplinary authority to conclude the inquiry.

8. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

9. Apparently, the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 governs the service conditions of the writ petitioner. Rule 4 reads as under.- 3 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025 "4.Suspension - (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servants or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule: Provided also that in the case Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. (2)A Government Servant in respect of, or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge, which is connected with his position as a Government Servant or which is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or which involves moral turpitude, is pending, may at the discretion of the appointing Authority or the Authority to whom the power of suspension has been delegated under these rules, be placed under suspension until termination of all proceedings relating to that charge. (3)(a) A Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed or as the case may be, continued to be place under suspension by an order of the Authority Competent to suspend, with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether the detention is on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours. (b)The aforesaid Government Servant shall after the release from the custody, inform in writing to the Competent Authority about his detention and may also make representation against the deemed suspension. The competent authority shall after considering the representation in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provision contained in this rule, pass appropriate order continuing the deemed suspension from the date of release from custody or revoking or modifying it. (4) Government Servant shall be deemed to have placed or, as the case may be, continued to be under suspension by an order of the Authority Competent to suspend under these rules, with effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of a conviction for an offence he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction." 4 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025

10. The first proviso of Rule 4 itself stipulates that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of there being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. Further, Rule 3 defines minor penalty, Rule 3 in extenso is quoted hereinunder.- "3. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the government servants; Minor Penalties (i) Censure (ii) Withholding of increments for a specified period. (iii) Stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of order. (v) Fine in case of persons in holding Group D posts. Provided that the amount of such fine shall in no case exceed twenty five percent of the months pay in which the fine is imposed. Major Penalties (1) Withholding of increments with cumulative effect; (ii) Reduction to a lower post or grade time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; (iii) Removal from the service which does not disqualify from future employment; (iv) Dismissal from the service which disqualify from future employment."

11. Importantly, stoppage of withholding of increments for a specific period is a minor punishment and withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. Since the ultimate punishment which could be imposed, in case, charges against the writ petitioner would be minor, thus, resorting of suspension in the facts and circumstances of the case would not be justified. Rule 29 of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 came up for consideration in umpteen decisions namely Writ-A No. 21010 of 2011 (Kuber Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and in the case of Prabhat Bhatnagar Vs. State of U.P. : (2023) 9 ADJ 615. Further Rule 29 of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 reads as under.- "29. Bigamous marriages.- (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall 5 WRIA No. 15046 of 2025 contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. (2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government. (3) The minimum punishment to be imposed for contravention of sub-rule (1) or sub- rule (2) shall be the withholding of increments for three years."

12. A bare look of Rule 29 of the 1956 rules would reveal that no Government servant who has a wife living shall contract marriage without first obtaining permission of the Government notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under personal law for the time being applicable to him.

13. As already noticed, at best taking the case of the respondents at face value minor punishment could have been imposed, thus, the suspension order is not justified.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms.- The order dated 20.09.2025 suspending the writ petitioner passed by the fourth respondent, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gorakhpur suspendng the writ petitioner is set aside. The passing of the order will not preclude the respondents from holding departmental proceedings which is permissible under law against the writ petitioner.

15. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

16. The instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A' and 'B'. October 28, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)