WP/33701/2022 of S.Arumugasamy Vs Joint Director of School Education on 7 October 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has joined as a Special Teacher (Drawing) in respondent's department on 06.01.1997. While he was in service, in 1998, he married the 4th respondent. Out of the marriage wedlock between the petitioner and fourth respondent, he has a son by name Jagdeesh. While so, during the subsistence of the first marriage, he married another woman by name Stellamarry. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum. Thereafter, after conducting the enquiry, vide impugned order dated 23.09.2021, a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, would admit that petitioner married Stellamarry during the subsistence of the first marriage. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said complaint was not given by the fourth respondent, whereas the respondents 1 to 3, based upon the anonymous complaint, has framed a charge. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that having the fourth respondent have no issue in respect of 2nd marriage, the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings is unwarranted. Hence, prayed to interfere with the same. He also contended that such complaint was given after lapse of more than ten years. Therefore, considering the long lapse of time and also upon the fact that the fourth respondent was not at all examined before the disciplinary authority, the punishment imposed against him is liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the whereabouts of the fourth respondent is not known for so many years, it must deemed to have been construed as civil death. Therefore, the very charge that the petitioner has contracted second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is without any basis. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

3. Per contra, the said contention was totally objected by learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and submitted that according to Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, bigamous marriage is prohibited. Whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner had admitted about his bigamous marriage. However, it is his contention that the whereabouts of the fourth respondent is not known for a statutory period. But even according to the documents filed along with the writ petition, the fourth respondent had withdrawn the maintenance application. Therefore, as on 2002, the fourth respondent was alive and according to the petitioner, he married one Stellamarry in the year 2007. Therefore, even according to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. The main submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of having no knowledge about the fourth respondent for a considerable period. Mere absence of knowledge to the petitioner in respect of whereabouts of the fourth respondent, namely first wife, is not a ground to presume himself that she has attained civil death. In order to have said relief, the petitioner ought to have moved appropriate jurisdictional civil court to seek a declaration that the person, who have not within the knowledge of the relatives for a statutory period of so many years, has attained civil death. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner did not get such declaration before contracting second marriage.

6. Therefore, in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner married one Stellamarry. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that there was no knowledge about the existence of the fourth respondent, the fact remains that without obtaining any divorce or without obtaining any declaration that the fourth respondent attained civil death, the petitioner married one Stellamarry. Therefore, the said conduct would amounts violation of Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973 and the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted with. Furthermore, the petitioner, being a teacher, he must be a role model to the students. Whereas, he himself committed a bigamous marriage. Therefore, the punishment imposed against him for compulsory retirement cannot held to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.

7. Thus, this Court absolutely does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order within the contours of the judicial review. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR TO

1. The Joint Director of School Education College Road DPI Chennai 600 006

2. Chief Education officer Raja street Coimbatore 641 001

3. District Education officer Coimbatore District Coimbatore

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 33701 of 2022 and WMP.No.33178 of 2022 07-10-2026