IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7812 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GOPI T.K., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SANSKRIT), GOVERNMENT GIRLS' HIGH SECONDARY SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.A.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT S. SIRI JAGAN, J ---------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7812 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 charge memo whereby certain allegations of misconduct relating to marrying a 2nd time while the 1st wife is living has been raised against him. He challenges the same. He relies on the decision of this Court in Jaladharan v. District Transport Officer, Trivandrum & others in 1994 KLJ 673 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 135 in support of the challenge. 2. The decisions relied on by the petitioner only shows that the question as to the 2nd marriage is a matter for evidence. In fact in Jaladharan's case, this court was considering the acceptability of the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry. That stage has not reached yet in this case since only a charge memo has been issued to the petitioner. I am of the W.P.(C) No.7812 of 2010 -2- opinion that in so far as the question of 2nd marriage itself is a question on fact which has to be proved in a departmental enquiry to be conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 charge memo it is not proper for this court to interfere with Ext.P1 at this point of time. The petitioner would get ample opportunity to controvert the evidence to be adduced in the enquiry. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take all his contentions in the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge Jvt