IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4068 of 2004 RAM SHRESTH MANDAL, SON OF SHRI DHANESHWAR MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGWASHA, POLICE STATIONBENIPATTI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ..........PETITIONER. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CUM CONDUCTING OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. ………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7. 28.01.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an assistant in Government Service at Kishanganj. He has come to this Court, and aggrieved by the order of the A.D.M., Kishanganj dated 8.7.2004 by which the A.D.M. has sustained the earlier order of dismissal. It may be noticed here that earlier the petitioner was dismissed which order was not interfered by the Commissioner in appeal. The matter having come to this Court and this Court had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The Divisional Commissioner then remanded the matter to the A.D.M., Kishanganj for fresh consideration. The graveman of charge as against the petitioner is that he was living with another widow as husband and wife neglecting his wife and his children and thus, effectively had violated Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order, submits that when the original proceedings 2 were drawn up his estranged wife, who had complained earlier, had herself filed applications withdrawing the complaint. She had clearly stated that the petitioner had made proper financial arrangements for her. The defence of the petitioner was that his wife was quite ill and unable to look after his children and him. She had gone to her Maike ( Naiher). Having waited two to three years for her to become well, he then started living with another lady who agreed to serve him and look after his children. The other lady was also in Government Service and was a widow having been appointed on death of her husband, who was in Government Service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts if writ petition is to be dismissed, it would be wholly counter productive in the sense that the very sustenance that is being sought by his estranged wife would be wiped out. There would be no money to keep up or maintained his wife and his children. They, the complainant, would be the losers. Whereas if he could continue living with the other lady they would be sufficiently provided petitioner being employed. Thus the whole exercise was counter productive and not commensurate to the allegation which in any case stood withdrawn by the lady in question. Having heard the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view the writ petition must succeed. If one read Rule 23 of the rules aforesaid in 3 totality it would be seen that Rule 23 itself permits second marriage. What this Court wants to emphasize is that bigamous relationship is not and absolute taboo. My view is in lieu with recent judgment of this Court in the case of Chitranjan Singh Versus the State of Bihar and another being C.W.J.C. No 10538 of 2002 disposed of on 27.2.2009, wherein under somewhat similar circumstances this Court held that the order of dismissal merely on ground of second marriage could not be sustained. There had to be something more. In the present case as has been noticed above, even the complainant had filed an application withdrawing her complaint. There are materials on record which clearly suggest that the petitioner had made adequate arrangement for maintenance of his wife and children but all that vanished with his suspension and then his dismissal. In fact it would not be wrong to say that the complainant herself became the victim, as the wife and the children have been deprived of their sustenance. That in my view, is not the idea of justice, especially when the complainant presses for withdrawal of the complainant itself. This legal issue was lost sight by the authorities in their anxiety to do justice according to law and not intention of law. The whole exercise has proved counter come the productive. There is no allegation of any dereliction in duty so far as petitioner is concerned. I may also note that proceedings were initiated against the other lady as she also in Government service but were dropped. In that view of the 4 matter, in my view the order cannot be sustained and its affirmance cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside. The petitioner was first dismissed from service by order dated 28.12.1998 which order had been affirmed by the order presently impugned being order dated 8.7.2004 as such it would be seen that from 1998 upto date petitioner has been out of service. Petitioner in view of the order being set aside would liable to be reinstated. He would be given full continuity of service but so far as the period from the time of his dismissal from service and reinstatement is concerned he would only be entitled to 25% of the back wages. This amount, the authorities would pay to petitioner’s wife, namely, Nagina Devi but current salary of the petitioner would be paid to the petitioner who would adequately take care of his wife and his children. Petitioner’s reinstatement order shall be issued within three months by the concerned Collector of the District. With these observations and directions the writ application stands disposed of. Devendra/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)