Rameshwar Prasad vs Military Engineer Services (MES) on 13 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The applicant was initially appointed as Peon on 27.06.1983 in the department of Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Jodhpur. At the time of filing of the present Original Application, the applicant was working as Daftry in the office of Chief Engineer, Jaipur Zone, MES Bani Park, Jaipur.

2. The applicant solemnized his first marriage on 08.06.1968, as has been contended by the applicant in his OA. Out of the first wedlock, two children were born to the couple, who later on died. While being married to his first wife namely Smt. Sugna Devi, he entered into second marriage on 30.10.1992.

3. The first wife of the applicant, in the year 2008, had filed a complaint, pursuant to which a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant. The applicant later on filed a divorce petition and the Hon’ble High Court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and his first wife on 04.07.2017. In her complaint dated 04.04.2008, the first wife alleged that, while being married to her, the applicant had performed a second marriage with Smt. Dhanni Devi. The said act was considered as misconduct in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (relating to bigamy). Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant and the penalty of reduction of three stages in the time scale of pay

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

3 OA No.186/2018

for a period of three years was awarded to the applicant vide order dated 28.11.2017. During the period of penalty, the applicant would not earn any increment of pay and on expiry of the penalty period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments.

4. The applicant has approached this Bench of the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs : “8(a). The impugned order dt. 28.11.2017 imposing the penalty of reduction to three stages in the timescale of pay for three years, and during the period the applicant will not earn increments of pay and on expiry of the penalty period the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increments of pay, may very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

8(b). To allow higher grade pay of Rs.1900/- Rs.2000 W.E.F. 01/09/2008 under MAC scheme on completion of 10/20 years service as already recommended by the screening committee and later on canceled till finalization of the appeal pending in High Court and enquiry and also arrear with interest as per rate prevalent commercial Banks.

8(c). To allow higher grade pay under the MACP scheme on completion of 30 years service and also allow arrear with interest as prayed above.

8(d). To refund the financial benefits of Rs.25,627/- W.E.F. January, 2026 already recovered after sanctioning of MACP, with 9% interest as per rate prevalent in Commercial Banks in Rajasthan.

8(e). Pray to call for the relevant record from the respondents for examination.

8(f). Any other order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem, just and proper be given in the interest of justice.”

5. The applicant has filed the present OA on the grounds that (i) the respondents have failed to appreciate that the first wife of the applicant had been living separately since 1993 without any reasonable cause, as such, she had deserted him; (ii)

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

4 OA No.186/2018

the respondents had failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble High Court, Jaipur Bench, had finally allowed the appeal filed by the applicant seeking divorce from his first wife; and (iii) the respondents had not adopted the proper procedure and had not granted him an opportunity of hearing.

6. The respondents, in their reply, have stated that the (a) The applicant, while being married to his first wife, entered into a second marriage, which amounts to misconduct in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It has been further stated that his first wife, Smt. Sugna Devi, had lodged a complaint on 04.04.2008, alleging that the applicant had entered into plural marriages and had committed an offence under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was liable to be punished. Thus, the department made a preliminary enquiry and a charge- sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served to the applicant on 03.07.2008 and enquiry into the charges framed against the applicant was ordered on 31.07.2008. The Enquiry Officer i.e. IC-49977X Lt. Col. N. Chauhan had submitted inquiry report on 03.09.2008 subject to a legal opinion to be sought from CGSC. A charge-sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, was also served to him vide this HQ letter No.10924/Rameshwar/10/EIC dated 08.07.2008.

(b) . Accordingly, legal opinion on the above matter was sought vide office letter No.10924/Rameshwar/MON/EIC dated 08.09.2008. As per legal opinion given by the CGSC vide letter dated 10.10.2008 that “the Natha-Pratha also comes under the

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

5 OA No.186/2018

rules relating the bigamy and department may proceed further against the aforesaid applicant for the alleged act of bigamy”.

(c) . This HQ had further sought legal opinion appraising the situation that a Court case for divorce between the Government employee and his first wife Smt. Sugna Devi is pending in the Family Court No.2 Jaipur vide Case No.192/2003. 2nd legal opinion was also received from the CGSC vide letter dated 02.06.2012 stating that “Employee has married twice, first by Hindu marriage rituals and second by Natha-Pratha as such, the act of concerned employee is covered under plural marriage, thus the department may proceed as per provision of the relevant law and the rules.”

(d) . The HQ asked a final legal opinion on the above subject matter from Senior CGSC vide letter No.19024/Rameshwar/62/E1C dated 18.10.2017 and the Senior CGSC opined vide his legal opinion dated 07.11.2017 that “Natha-Pratha also comes under the rules relating to bigamy and the bigamy is clearly established”. Though the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2017 dissolved the marriage of the Government servant with his first wife Smt. Sugna Devi, the same would not absolve him for misconduct.

(e) . In view of the above facts, the department in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 14 of the CGS (CC&A) Rules 1965 imposed the penalty. The applicant had entered into plural marriages during the year 1992. As such the act of the applicant is covered under plural marriages and offence under Hindu

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

6 OA No.186/2018

Marriage Act, 1955 which is liable to be punished, thus the department is entitled to proceed as per provision of the relevant law and the rules under Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. First wife (Smt. Sugna Devi) had not left the applicant’s home without reasonable cause, the main reason of separation was plural marriage.

7. The respondents have further stated that meanwhile the applicant has been promoted from Peon to Daftry with effect from 27.07.2016 vide this office Part-II Order No.34/40/2016 dated 22.08.2016. Nature of this promotion is non-functioning grade i.e. promoted without change of pay structure. Earlier the Categories Peon & Daftry were re-categorized as "Group 'C' employees" under RPR-2008 and placed in Pay Band of PB-1 Rs.5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay Rs.1,800/- w.e.f 01.01.2006 in case those Group 'D' employees have acquired educational qualification i.e. Matriculate pass and equivalents and were placed into pay band of PB-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and other Group ‘D' employees, who had not qualified the aforesaid educational qualification (Matriculate), as per instructions will undergo a retraining by the department and then only those retrained Group ‘D’ employees were also to be upgraded into Erstwhile Group C employees with Grade Pay Rs.1,800/-. In this regards, the applicant had no minimum educational qualification of Matriculate. So the department had conducted on "Job training" and after successfully completion of on job training and the applicant was placed in the PB-1

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

7 OA No.186/2018

(Rs.5,200-20,200/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- as on 01.01.2006 accordingly.

8. As on date the scale / level of pay matrix of various categories (Peon, Daftry, Ferro Printer and Record Keeper etc) are covered in Level corresponding to GP Rs.1,800/-. Level 1 under RPR-2016 and called as MTS (Multi Tasking Staff). Hence, there is no issue in promotion to the category from Peon to Daftry. The applicant was also redesignated as MTS vide the office PTO No.30/04/2018 dated 23.07.2018.

9. They further state that the applicant was appointed as Peon on 27.06.1983 in the scale Rs.196-232 (RPR), corresponding scale Rs.2,550-3,200/- (RPR-1996). His pay upgraded in the scale Rs.2,610-4,000/- on grant of 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 2nd ACP granted on 27.06.2007 in the existing scale Rs.2,750-4,400. In revision of pay under RPR-2008, the audit authority i.e. PCDA (SWC) Jaipur had erroneously concurred his pay in PB-1 (Rs.5,200-20,200/-) with Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- instead of Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- due to lack of information, which was notified vide this office PTO No.10/07/2010 dated 01.02.2010. The applicant’s pay was re- fixed with Grade Pay Rs.1,800/- vide PTO No.45/25/2012 dated 05.11.2012, resulted in some recovery made and further no recovery has been made during the year 2014 as claimed.

10. Heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and materials placed on record.

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

8 OA No.186/2018

11. The applicant was married to one Smt. Sugna Devi on 08.04.1968. While being married to her, he performed a second marriage with another woman, Smt. Dhanni Devi, on 30.10.1992. As such, his first wife filed a complaint against him with the respondents on 04.04.2008, stating that, in spite of a living spouse, he had solemnized a second marriage. Acting upon her complaint, the respondents department sought an explanation from the applicant vide letters dated 10.04.2008 and 16.04.2008. In response thereto, the applicant submitted his replies vide letters dated 11.04.2008 and 17.04.2008, respectively. Not being satisfied with his replies, the respondents served a show-cause notice dated 12.05.2008 upon the applicant. The applicant submitted his reply dated 29.05.2008 to the show-cause notice.

12. Thereupon, the respondents issued and served a charge-sheet dated 03.07.2008 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant filed his reply dated 14.07.2008, whereupon, an enquiry was ordered on 31.07.2008 to enquire into the charges framed against the applicant. The Enquiry Officer, Lt. Col. N. Chauhan, submitted his enquiry report on 03.09.2008, holding the charges framed against the applicant as proved. However, the Enquiry Officer recommended that a legal opinion be sought as to whether the Natha-Pratha, under which the applicant had performed the second marriage, falls under marriage / contract marriage or not and, in case, Natha-Pratha is legally found to fall under the ambit of marriage / contract marriage, then action needs to be taken against the applicant as

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

9 OA No.186/2018

per the rules applicable to Central Government employees with regard to plural marriage.

13. Accordingly, first legal opinion was sought by the respondents and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel opined that “the Natha-Pratha also comes under the rules relating to bigamy and the department may proceed further against the said employee for the alleged act of bigamy”.

14. The respondents sought second legal opinion especially in the light of the fact that the Court case for divorce was pending between him and his first wife in the Family Court. The second legal opinion was also received from Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Kunal Rawat vide his letter dated 02.06.2012 stating “Employee has married twice, firstly by Hindu Marriage rituals and secondly by Nata Pratha as such the act of concerned employee is covered under double marriage, thus the department may proceed as per the provision of the relevant law and the rules”.

15. Even third legal opinion was sought by the respondents and this time from Shri Rajendra Vaish, Central Government Senior Standing Counsel who once again reaffirmed and opined that Natha-Pratha also comes under the rules relating to bigamy and the bigamy in the case of the applicant was clearly established. As such, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of “Reduction to three stages in the time scale of pay for three years. During the period you will not earn increments of pay and on expiry of the penalty period

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

10 OA No.186/2018

the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of your pay”.

16. From the above chronology, it is clearly evident that the respondents followed the due process of law while conducting the enquiry against the applicant. It is misplaced on the part of the applicant to state that he was not found guilty by the Enquiry Officer and that it is only based upon the legal opinion that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty upon him. The fact is that the Enquiry Officer did find him guilty of the charges; however, he had only suggested that legal opinion be sought as to whether Natha-Pratha falls under the ambit of marriage and, in case, if Natha-Pratha falls under the ambit of marriage, then the applicant is liable for action under the service rules on account of plural marriage.

17. The applicant has sought to justify his second marriage on the ground that his first wife, after the birth of two children (twins), who unfortunately died soon after their birth, could not bear children thereafter. So, he was entitled to enter into a second marriage, and more so because his first wife had left the matrimonial home and his marriage was dissolved by the Hon’ble High Court later on.

18. First of all, the applicant was married to his first wife on 08.06.1968 and entered into a second marriage on 30.10.1992, because of which on 08.03.1993 after five month of his second marriage, his first wife left as she had no option but to leave the matrimonial home. Divorce was granted by the Hon’ble High

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

11 OA No.186/2018

Court much later, on 04.07.2017, meaning thereby that the applicant entered into a second marriage while his first wife was alive and living with him and during the subsistence of the first marriage. The divorce was granted almost 25 years after his second marriage. As such, he was living in a plural marriage for almost 25 long years, which is a misconduct under the service rules.

19. As to his claim that he has been penalized twice for performing a second marriage, it is misplaced. As has been explained in the preceding paragraphs, the applicant was never imposed the penalty of withdrawal / non-grant of MACP as per the rules. Since disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, his case for grant of third MACP was deferred, and vide letter dated 20.02.2013, the request for grant of MACP was asked to be resubmitted after finalization of the Disciplinary Proceedings.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the Original Application. The applicant entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The subsequent grant of divorce (25 years after his second marriage) by the Hon’ble High Court does not alter the fact that, at the time of entering into the second marriage, his first marriage was subsisting and continued so a least 25 years, thereafter. The plea of the applicant seeking to justify his second marriage on

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

12 OA No.186/2018

the ground of the circumstances relating to his first wife, specially that she could not bear children after the death of her twins, therefore, cannot be accepted. We are also unable to find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in deferring the grant of the third MACP pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Original Application, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

21. Before parting, we would like to observe that even after 80 years of independence, patriarchy is still claimed as a matter of right and women are still struggling for basic dignity. We are aghast to read the contention of the applicant in the Original Application, where he is blatantly claiming the right to walk over the first wife and go on to marry the second woman and, ironically, it has societal sanction. The poor, illiterate lady is left with no say and can be easily brushed aside as useless in case she is not able to serve the man as per his expectation. Every day, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is invoked, while we are not even bothered to first give that equality to half of the population of this Country.

22. Every other day, we have a case of multiple wives, either on the pretext of some customary right or non-bearing of children, but have not come across a single case of multiple husbands on the same ground of custom or inability of the first or second husband to produce children.

23. It is also ironical that those very men who invoke the Constitution of India to enter public employment do not want to

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

13 OA No.186/2018

extend to even their own women the benefits / rights enshrined in the Constitution. The men who challenge discrimination and want equality for themselves are not prepared to give equality to their own women. The woman is the lowest denominator even amongst the lowest in the society, and till the time she is given equality, we cannot claim to be an equitable society and a country run by the Constitution in its true letter and spirit.

24. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.

(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J)

kmg*

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA