WP/35702/2024 of K. Rajesh Vs The Registrar (Admn) on 31 December 2024

1. The Registrar [(Admn), High Court ][for ][the State ][of ][Telangana, Hyderabad']

2. The Principal District [and Sessions Judge-cum-Disciplinary Authority, ][sanga]Reddy District.Reddy District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][lhe ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate [writ, order or direction more ][particularly ][one ][in]the nature of writ of [certiorari calling ][for ][the ][records ][connected ][with ][impugned]order [passed ]by [the ][1"t ][respondent ][vide ][D.(D). ][NoO212O23,C'4 ][(Con), ][dated]19.g.2024 against order [dated ][6.9.2022 ][of the 2nd ][respondent, imposing ][on ][the]2nd petitioner a [major ][penalty ][of ][removal ][from ][service, ][vide ][his ][order]No.317412O22, dated [6.9.2022 pursuant ][to ][Enquiry ][Report ][in]Dis.No.516/2022dated [22.7.2022 ][of ][Enquiry officer-cum-senior ][civil ][Judge']Zaheerabad, a nd to [quash ][the ][same ][to ][the ][extent ][of ][removal ][of ][service ][ofthe ][2nd]

petitioner from the rie,rvices of the 2nd respondent unit, as being illegal, arbitrary,violative to Articles 1,1, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia, and ,:xcessive, andviolative to Articles 1,1, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia, and ,:xcessive, andresultantly to direct the respondents to re-instate the 2nd petitioner, into theservices of the 2nd [.espondent ]by imposing lesser penalty.services of the 2nd [.espondent ]by imposing lesser penalty.

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased tosuspend operation of the orders dated 19.3.2024 in D.(D) A.No.212023, c.4(Con.) passed by the '1"t respondent, and orders dated 6.9.2022 inD.E.No.112022, oas:sed by the 2nd respondent, to the extent of removar of 2nd(Con.) passed by the '1"t respondent, and orders dated 6.9.2022 inD.E.No.112022, oas:sed by the 2nd respondent, to the extent of removar of 2ndpetitioner from the services of the 2nd respondent, and to re-instate him into theservices of the 2nd respondent, by imposing lesser penalty on the ilnd petitioner,pending disposal of the main writ petition.services of the 2nd respondent, by imposing lesser penalty on the ilnd petitioner,pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIVEK JAIN, SC FOR THE HlcH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE SUJOY PAUL&THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RAI{IWRIT PETITION No.357O2 oF 2o24

ORDER lper Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Radha Ranifi This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari callingfor the records connected with impugned order passed byrespondent No.1 vide D.(D) No.02/2023, C.4 (Con) dated19.O3.2024 against the order dated 06.O9.2022 ofrespondent No.2, imposing the petitioner a rrrajor penaltyof removal from service vide order No.3l74l2O22 dated06.09.2022 pursuant to Enquiry Report in-Dis.No.5i6l2O22 dated 22.O7.2C22 of trnquiry Officer cum - Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad and to quash rhesame to the extent of removal of service of the petitionerfrom the services of respondent No.2 Unit, as beingillegal, arbitrary, violative to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of theConstitution of India, and excessive and resultantly todirect the respondents to re-instate the petitioner intothe services of respondent No.2 bf irnposing lesserpenalty and to pass such other order or orders asdeemed fit and proper in the interest [of ][justice."]

SP, J & Dr.GRR,v;p 35702 2O24

2. Heard Sri V. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned courlsel for thepetitioner and Srr Vivek Jain, learned Stalding Counsei for the HighCourt for the Sterte of Telangana.3. Learned cc,unsel for the petitioner submitted that Lhe petitionerwas appointed as an Office Sub-Ordinate in the Court o- Junior CivilJudge, Naravanl<herl in the year 2016 in the unit of respondent No.2on compassionar:e grounds after the death of his father, due to heart*attack. Subseque.ntly, he was promoted to the post of Plocess Serverin the year 2022. The petitioner was married in the year 2009 as perHindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, he was ble-ssed with t\,vofemale children. In the year 2013, the wife of the petitioner goraffected with epilepsl, ald mental disorder besides other health issues.With her conselt, the petitioner married one Santoshini on22.03.2022. Tht: father of Santoshini, who was not inter-ested in thesaid marriage, lited a criminal case besides hling a complaint beforerespondent No.2 authority. The respondent No.2 authority initiateddepartmental enqr-riry against the petitioner. The petitionr;r denied thecharge. Hor,r,ever, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquirv Officersubmitted his report to the respondent No.2 holding the charge asproved. Basing on the enquiry report, after giving fina: notice, thepetitioner u,as a.* arded u,ith major penalty of remor.al [.rom ]servicefrom the senice of respondent No.2 vide orders in D.tr.No. I12022 vide Dis.No.3174l2022 dated [06.09.2022. ][Challengrng ][the ][same, ][the]petitioner preferred al appeal. [But ][the respondent ][No ][l ][dismissed ][the]said appeal vide [impugned ][orders dated ][19 ]['O3 ]['2024 ][in]D. (D).No.2/2023, C.4 [(Con).]

3. 1 .. Learned counsel [for the ][petitioner ][further ][submitted ][that ][the]penalty imposed by the [respondents ][against ][the ][petitioner ][was]to the [misconduct ][proven against ][him' ]Thedisproportionate respondents ought to [have ][imposed ][a ][lesser ][punishment' ][The]punishment of removal from [service ][was shockingly ][dispropo{tionate ][']The Enquiry Officer found [the petitioner ][guilty ][merely ][on the ][basis of]his admission, but [failed to ][observe ][that ][no ][witnesses ][r.r'ere ][examined]before the Enquiry officer [to ][establish ][that ][the petitioner ][performed]second marriage [as ][per ][Hindu rites ][and ][customs']

3.2. Learned counsel [for ][the ][petitioner ][relied upon ][the ][Division]BenchjudgmentoftheAllahabadHighCourtinPrabhatBhatnagarv.

State of Uttar [Pradesh ][and ][Others ][1 ][wherein ][the ][punishment ][for]misconduct, as [per ][Rule ][29 ][of ][the ][UP Government Servants Conduct]Rules, was imposed [as ][withholding of ][increments ][for ][three years and]the court directed [reinstatement ][of ][the ][petitioner ][within ][a ][month from]of [the certified ][copy ][of ][the order and ][further ][placed reliance]the receipt upon the [Division ][Bench ][judgment ][of ][the ][Guwah"ti ][H# ][Court ][in ][Writ]'2023 [Li.,e ][l-arv (AB) ][279]

I

SP, J & Dr.GRR,w'p_35702-2024

Appeal No.357 ol' 2022 in Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath2dated 18.01.2023, wherein considering that the writ petitioner had achild from the first marriage, who was about 15 yeal-s and if thepenalty of dismirssial vvas to be upheld, it would cut off th: only sourceof income nol- o.:l.n for him but also for his first wife, her rlaughter aldhis second r.r'.ife and considering that the dismissal was the extremeform of punishment, which has the effect of not only cutting off thesource of incomr:, depriving him ald his dependants of [,,he ]means ofsustenance, held that contracting a second marriage during thesubsistence of tLre first marriage, though was in violation of rules, yet,it could not be sraid that it was one of the most heirLous form ofmisconducts, for u.hich he must be necessarily visited with thepunishment of dismissal, ordered a lesser punishment.4. Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State ofTelangara on the other hald contended that basing on a complaintreceived from one Sri G.Venugopal on O2.O4.2O22 alleging that thepetitioner incluced his daughter to accompany him and forcibiymarried her, ie criminal case in Crime No.70 of 2022 was filed on thefile of the Narayankhed Police Station and the said comgrlainant alsolodged a complaint u,ith respondent No.2 authority. An explanationwas called for from the petitioner and not satisfied u,ith the'2023 [Liye ][Lar,r. ][((iiru ]i [24]

explanation [submitted by the ][petitioner' ][an ][enquiry ][was ][initiated- ][The]Enquiry [Officer ][conducted ][enquiry and ][found the ][petitioner ][guilty ][of]serious [misconduct ][of ][marrying ][Kum' ][Salthoshini ][during ][the]subsistence [of ][his ][first ][marriage and ][found ][that ][he had violated ][Rule]'I Services (CCA) and Conduct Rules' 1964' [The]2 5( i ) of [Telangana ][Ctvr]enquiry [report ][was ][furnished ][to ][the ][d'elinquent ][and ][thereafter ][the]respondent [No.2 ][imposed ][the ][penalty ][of ][removal ][from ][service ][on]06.09.2022. [The petitioner ][also preferred ][an ][appeal ][to ][respondent]No.1. [The ][respondent ][No' 1 ][being satisfied ][that ][no ][grounds ][were ][made]to disprove [the ][charge ][against ][the ][appellant and ][there ][\lras ][no ][error ][in]the order [passed ][by the ][Disciplinary ][Authority' ][observed ][that ][there]was no [reason ][to ][interfere ][with ][the ][penalty ][imposed ][against ][the]petitioner [and ][dismissed ][the ][appeal']

5. Learned [Standing Counsel ][for ][the ][High Court ][for ][the ][State of]Telangana [relied ][upon ][the ][judgment ][of the ][Hon'ble Apex ][Court ][in]Khursheed [Ahmad ][Khan ][v' ][State ][of ][Uttar ][Pradesh ][and ][Others3 ][on]the aspect [that ][performing ][a ][second ][marriage ][during ][the ][subsistence]of the first [marriage, ][is ][considered ][as ][a ][misconduct and ][removal ][of ][the]petitioner [from ][service ][could ][not ][be ][held ][to ][be ][disproportionate ][to ][the]charge [on established ][judiciai ][parameters']

' [(2015) ][8 ][SCC ][439]

SP, J & Dr.GRR,w9_3s7O2 2024

6. As seen fr,orrr the record, basing on the complaint filed by one SriG.Venugopal on 02.O4.2022 before respondent No.2 that the petitioner,who was workirrg as a Process Server in Narayalkhed Oourt inducedhis daughter l{um.G.Santoshini to accompany him and forciblymarried her and that he also filed a criminal case in Crime No.7O of2022 on the file of the Narayankhed police Station, an explanation wascalled by respo.n,Cent No.2 from the petitioner (delinquent) and notbeing satisf,red [.n ]ith the explalation provided b1, him, charges wereframed against Lrim as follows:

Articles of Charge

"That you, Sri K.Rajesh, Process Server, Junior Civil Judg;e,s Court,Narayankhed having hrst marriage in subsistence and said to havebeen having t\a.o children and married secor rd limebeen having t\a.o children and married secor rd limeKum. G.San,-oshini by abducting her from the custocly of herparents as p,3r'the recitals of FiR in Crime No.7O of 2O.22 underSection 366 of IPC ot PS Narayankhed and you Sri l(.Rajesh,Process Servel contacted Second Marriage indulging Eiigamousparents as p,3r'the recitals of FiR in Crime No.7O of 2O.22 underSection 366 of IPC ot PS Narayankhed and you Sri l(.Rajesh,Process Servel contacted Second Marriage indulging Eiigamousmarriage and misconducted yourself within the meaning of Rule25(1) of Telang.ana Civil Sen'ices (CCA) and Concluct Rules, 1964and rendercd ,r.ourself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 20of Telanganzr rlivil Serv-ices (CCA) Rules, 1991."and rendercd ,r.ourself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 20of Telanganzr rlivil Serv-ices (CCA) Rules, 1991."

7. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Zalteerabad was aippointed asEnquiry Ofhcer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquirv,found that the said charge rvas proved against the petitioner. TheEnquiry Officer srrbmitted his repofr on 22.O2.2022. On receipt of the report of the [Enquiry ][Officer, ][the ][Disciplinary ][Authodry ][called ][for]from [the ][petitioner duly furnishing ][copy ][of the ][report ][and]explanation on receipt of [the ][written ][submission ][from ][the ][petitioner' ][the]Disciplinary [Authority ][i.e' ][the ][respondent ][No ][2 ][passed ][a ][ltnal ][order]dated 06.09.2022 [irrrpostng ][major ][penalty ][of ][removal ][of ][the ][petitioner]tfrom service' The [Appellate ][Authority i ][e' ][respondent ][No ][1 ][observed]that as [per ][the report ][of ][the ][Enquiry ][Officer' the ][petitioner ][got ][married]Kum G. Santoshini, [while ][his ][earlier ][marriage ][with ][K'Lavanya ][was]subsisting [ald ][that ][Mrs'K'Lavanya ][filed ][a ][complaint ][under ]498-A of [IPC ][and another application ][seeking ][maintenance ][against the]herein. [The petitioner admitted ][before ][the Enquiry ][Officer]petitioner that he married [G.Santoshini ][during the ][subsistence ][of ][the ][marriage]with K.Lavanya [and ][that ][the ][only lapse ][on ][his part ][was ][not obtaining]prior permission [u'ith ][the ][Government before ][marrying ][Santoshinr']The Enquiry [Officer considering ][that ][bigamy was ][not ][only ][a ][personal]of [the ][life ][of ][the ][employee, ][but ][it ][was a ][conduct ][prescribed ][by]aspect the Service [Rules ][and ][the ][Government Servant ][is ][expected ][to ][abide]and obey [the ][Service ][Rules, ][held ][the ][charge ][framed'against ][the]petitioner [as ]Proved'

The respondent respondent [[No' ][1 ][- ][the ][Appellate ]][[1 ][- ][the ][Appellate ]][[- ][the ][Appellate ]][[the ][Appellate ]][[Appellate ]][Authority ][also ][considered]

8. The respondent respondent [[No' ][1 ][- ][the ][Appellate ]][[1 ][- ][the ][Appellate ]][[- ][the ][Appellate ]][[the ][Appellate ]][[Appellate ]]the contention [of ][the appelrant ][that ][his ][-" ]contracting [second ][marri'ge' ][but ][opined ][that]1: "P;:;,"".._

SP, J & Dr.wP 35702-2024

as such consent [\vas ][illegal and ][void. ][If ][such consent ][wrls ][permitted,]then the very FrLtrpose [arrd object ][of the ][Conduct ][Rules ][would ][be]defeated. The public [servant by ][reiying ][on ][the ][consent ][of ][the ][first ][wife,]could not seek protection [from the ][Conduct ][Ruies, ][which ][otherwise]prohibit contra.c.[ing of second marriage [during ][the ][subsistence ][of ][the]first marriage. ['lhe ][respondent No.1 ][also observed ][that ][:he appellant]neither prodttceri an1' [medical reports ][to prove ][the ][ill-health ][of ][his ][first]wife, nor examlned the doctor [to ][that ][effect ][and ][that ][he frilled to ][make]out any grouncl [.c, ]disprove [the ][charge against ][him ][and ][hr:ld ][that ][there]was no reasorr to interfere with the [penaity ][imposed ][by ][the]Disciplinarl' AlLt h :rity.

g. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Khursheed [Ahmad ][Khan ][v. ][State ][of]Uttar Pradesh :rnd Others [(cited supra), ][vvherein ][also ][t.he ][validity ][of]the order removing the appellant [from ][service ][for ][proved ][rnisconduct ][of]contracting anot.her marriage during [subsistence ][of ][the ][lirst ][marriage,]without permissic,n of the Government, [in ][violation ][of Ru ][e 29(1) ][of ][UP]Government Serviants [Conduct Rules, ][1956, ][rn'as ][challenfled, ][held that:]

"9. Learned counsel for the State [also subrnits ][that ][the ][valirlity ][of ][the]impugned C.onrluct Rule [is ][not ][operr ][to ][question ][on ][the ][gror ][nd ][that ][it]violated Articl,: 25 of the Constitution [in ][vie'w ][of ][the ][law ][laid ][down ][by ][this]court in Sarla Mudgal vs. Union [of ][Iadia ][(1995) [3 ][SCC ][635 ][: ][1995 ][SCC](Cri) 5691 Hr: further submitted that the High Court [r.r,'as ][j ][ustified ][in]holding that the punishment of remova-l could not be [held ]to [be]shockingh. disproportionate to the charge ald dicl aot call for anyinterferenceimpugned C.onrluct Rule [is ][not ][operr ][to ][question ][on ][the ][gror ][nd ][that ][it]violated Articl,: 25 of the Constitution [in ][vie'w ][of ][the ][law ][laid ][down ][by ][this]court in Sarla Mudgal vs. Union [of ][Iadia ][(1995) [3 ][SCC ][635 ][: ][1995 ][SCC](Cri) 5691 Hr: further submitted that the High Court [r.r,'as ][j ][ustified ][in]holding that the punishment of remova-l could not be [held ]to [be]shockingh. disproportionate to the charge ald dicl aot call for anyinterference

I I. As already mentioned above, there is adequate material on record insupport of the charge against the appellant that he performed secondsupport of the charge against the appellant that he performed secondmarriage during the currency of the frrst marriage. Admittedly, there isno intimation in any form on record that the appellant had divorced hishrst wife. In senice record she continued to be mentioned as the wife ofthe appellant. Moreover, she has given a statement in inquiryhrst wife. In senice record she continued to be mentioned as the wife ofthe appellant. Moreover, she has given a statement in inquiryproceedings that she continued to be wife of the appellant. The appellanta-lso admitted in inquiry conducted on directions of the Human RightsCommission that his hrst marriage had continued. In thesecircumstarces, the hnding of violation of Conduct Rules cannot be heldcircumstarces, the hnding of violation of Conduct Rules cannot be heldto be perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court.In these circumstalces, the High Court was justified in holding that theIn these circumstalces, the High Court was justified in holding that thepenalty of removal iannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate tothe charge on established [judicial ]parameters."the charge on established [judicial ]parameters."

10. In the present case also, the Enquiry Report would disclose that the petitioner performed the second marriage with G.Santoshiniduring the subsistence of his marriage with K. Lavanya and had takenthe defence that he got married with the consent of K.Lavanya. Anyconsent, which was against the Conduct Rules, could not beconsidered as a valid consent as far as the public servants areconcerned. When the Service Rules contemplate a prohibition arlddescribed a particular conduct as a misconduct, then the publicservant has to follow the conduct. Even in'the case of consent, he isexpected to reject the consent. The public servant could not takeprotection by stating that his first wife has given consent and thereforehe contracted second marriage. The Enquiry Ofhcer, after examiningthe witnesses and on considering the documenta4z evidence filedbefore him, found the petitioner guilty of the charge framed againsthim. The Discipiinary Authority also on considering the entirematerial available on record and the findings of the Enquiry Officer SP, J & Dr.wp'35702_2024

arrd the seriousness of the charge [levelled ]against [him, ][mposed ][the]penalty of removeLl from service. This Court considers thar [the penalty]of removal was not shockingly disproportionate [to ][the ][chruge ][levelled]against the petitioner and the finding [was ]not [found to ][be perverse ][or]un-reasonable, u'hLich calls for anl'' interference by this Court. [No]humanitarian grounds can be considered when the [pueishment ][is]found to be proportionate to the misconduct committed by [the]petitioner.

11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [No ][order ][as ]to [costs.]

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications [pending ]in this [petition,]if any shall stand closed.

SD/. P.CH.N[AGAI}HUSHAMBA]AANSTRAR//TRUE [COPY//]FFICER

To,1one cc to [S1i.r/ ]cf reransana,1ailP-htflf5,"+fl1',#,ILTii!SI#8L"" 2one CC to Sri [Vivek ][Jatn, ][I]at HyderabadlOPUCI3Two CD CoPiesTJBSRw1one cc to [S1i.r/ ]cf reransana,1ailP-htflf5,"+fl1',#,ILTii!SI#8L"" 2one CC to Sri [Vivek ][Jatn, ][I]at HyderabadlOPUCI3Two CD CoPiesTJBSRw

i1.

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

ORDER

WP.No.35702 of 2024

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

<),dd&*

F'tQ[:.]1[riE ][STlr]e7so2I [Ftl]lu(l,-Ds's-\_=:- IIIIi