IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23206 of 1998 Between: Smt. Chandra Nagaratnam W/o Sri M.S.V. Prasada Rao R/o Katrenikona (V) & (M), East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Food Corporation of India rep. by its Managing Director 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110 001 2 The Zonal Manager Food Corporation of India Zonal Office, P.B.No.1072, 690 Annasalai, Chennai-600 006 3 The Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India Regional Office, HACA Bhavan, III Floor, Public Garden Road, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash orders, dated 17.05.1985 and 17.10.1985 of respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively and also order, dated 02.07.1998 of the Managing Director of respondent No.1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III (General) in respondent No.1 – the Food Corporation of India (for short ‘the Corporation’) on 30.07.1976. She was promoted as Assistant Grade- II (General) later. The petitioner married one Moka Sri Vishnu Prasada Rao on 11.09.1976. Thereafter, she addressed letters to the officials of the Corporation to change her surname from ‘Ganti’ to ‘Moka’ in the official records. The Corporation later found that Sri Moka Sri Vishnu Prasada Rao, whom the petitioner married, had already a spouse living, which in fact, was informed by the petitioner herself. As the conduct of the petitioner in marrying a person, whose spouse was already living, constituted misconduct under Regulation 51 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short ‘the Regulations’), disciplinary proceedings were initiated. An enquiry officer was appointed and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by him, respondent No.3 removed the petitioner from service. The said order was affirmed in appeal by respondent No.2 by order dated 17.10.1985. The petitioner thereafter preferred a review petition to a wrong authority and after the same was returned in the year 1993, she filed a review petition before the Managing Director of the Corporation. After a detailed examination of the said review petition, the same was dismissed by the said authority on 02.07.1998. At the hearing, Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, had reiterated the averments contained in the affidavit. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the petitioner married a person during the subsistence of his wedlock, is admitted by the petitioner herself and under Regulation 51 of the Regulations, such an act constitutes misconduct, unless such a marriage is permitted by personal law of any person or the Corporation for any valid reason permits such act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since power is given to the authority to permit the marriage, the Corporation ought not to have been inflicted the extreme penalty of removal from service. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Regulation 51 of the Regulations is based on public policy. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to Hindu religion and is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Bigamous marriage is prohibited under the said Act, apart from such an act constituting an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Even the discretion vested in the Corporation is required to be exercised in accordance with and in furtherance of the object of law. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the Corporation not accepting the request of the petitioner to accept such a bigamous marriage, which is forbidden by law. In the face of the admitted facts, the issue as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity or not pales into insignificance. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:15.12.2008 GJ