1 WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 2009 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 2009 Vithal Mahadev Gadekar : Petitioner versus PR Chief Post Master General Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai and anr. : Respondents. Mr. Vilas Mali for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajay Patil for the Respondents. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 12th July 2010 P.C. 1 The Petitioner by this writ petition challenges the order of dismissal passed against him by the Department. By the said order dated 19th March 2004, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that the even though the Petitioner was married to one Nanda, he performed his second marriage with one Asha on 10th February 1994 and the second wife, having came to know about the fact that the Petitioner was already married, committed suicide. The said act of the Petitioner constituted a misconduct under Rule 21(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The Petitioner was issued a charge sheet in which two charges were levelled against the Petitioner. Namely that the Petitioner had failed to inform his arrest in the criminal case and also the act of the Petitioner marrying a second time. A departmental enquiry was conducted into the said charges and the Petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 19/3/2004. The Petitioner challenged the said order after about one and half years before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 4th October 2006 dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the Appellate Authority as 2 WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 2009 back as in the year 2006 by way of this Petition which is filed after about more than three years. 2 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that a criminal case was filed against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said criminal case the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai has found that the factum of second marriage of the Petitioner with Asha is not proved. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid observations of the Sessions Court, the Disciplinary Authority was not justified in passing the dismissal order. In this respect, it is required to be noted that the Disciplinary Enquiry was concluded and the Petitioner was already dismissed in the year 2004 from service much prior to the decision of the Sessions Court i.e. in the year 2007. The Disciplinary Authority had, on the basis of the material available on record, had passed the impugned order of dismissal. The Appellate Authority had also dismissed the appeal in the year 2006 which was filed by the Petitioner after a period of one and half years. Thereafter the Petitioner approached this Court after a period of about three years . The Disciplinary proceedings had concluded much prior to the Sessions Court acquitting the Petitioner. In fact the departmental Appeal had also been disposed of prior to the said acquittal. In para-11 of its judgment, the Sessions Court has observed that the evidence of the brother and sister of the deceased is sufficient to draw an inference of marriage of the accused with deceased Asha. The Sessions Court further observed that the prosecution could very well apply section 498(A) to the accused. The Sessions Court however found that there is no evidence to infer marriage of accused with Asha much less with Nanda. 3 WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 2009 3 Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the Departmental Enquiry preceded the Sessions Court’s order. Over and above the said aspect the Petitioner has himself admitted before the Disciplinary Authority in his statement (Exh.S-5) that he married Asha while his first wife Nanda was alive. The Appellate Authority also considered this aspect about the second marriage and recorded a finding of fact in this behalf. It is required to be noted that the standard of proof in a Departmental Enquiry is different as compared to the criminal trial. If on the basis of the statement made by the Petitioner the Departmental Enquiry was concluded by recording a finding that the Petitioner had performed second marriage during the subsistence of the first, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion. The order of the Appellate Authority which is of the year 2006 has been challenged by the Petitioner by way of this writ petition after more than three years in 2009. Even the original appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was in fact filed after one and half years after the order of Disciplinary Authority. 4 The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that probably the Petitioner has suppressed the fact of his first marriage with deceased Asha, and when deceased Asha came to know that the Petitioner was already married, she committed suicide. He further submitted that a lady lost her life because of the aforesaid deed of the Petitioner. Of course we are not required to consider this aspect of the matter, as we are only required to consider the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment on the Petitioner. That order in our view cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the above petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]