1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 398 of 2009 Harishchandra v. The State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.V. Bhide, Adv for petitioner. Mr Bharti Dangre, Addl.GP for for respondents Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 9th June 2009 1. Heard Mr A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms Bharti Dangre, Addl. GP for respondents. Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, whereby Original Application No. 305 of 2006 filed by the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Department, came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that action of the respondent Department is unsustainable in law since 2 as per the Police Manual, particularly, Chapter XIII ( paragraph 432 (5), Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 are not applicable in respect of the officers below the rank of Police Inspector. It is contended that the petitioner was a constable and, therefore, action taken against the petitioner under rule 26 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 by holding departmental enquiry could not be sustained in law. Learned counsel further submitted that even the evidence on record was inadequate to prove the charge that the petitioner married thrice. 3. Learned Addl. Government Pleader, on the other hand, has supported the action of respondent-Department as well as decision of the Tribunal. It is contended that as per the Police Manual, only the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979 are not applicable to the officers below the rank of Police Inspector. However, Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 are very much applicable and, therefore, the action taken by the respondent pursuant to rule 26 (2) of the Conduct Rules is sustainable in law. It is contended that the evidence on record has established that the petitioner married thrice and, therefore, in view of rule 26 (2), action taken by the respondent is sustainable in law. Consequently, decision of the 3 Tribunal is also legal. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the provisions of rule 26 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 and also considered the provisions of Police Manual. Rule 26 (1) contemplates that no Government servant shall enter into or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living and rule 26 (2) provides that no Government servant having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person. So far as proviso is concerned, the same is not attracted in respect of controversy in issue. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner married thrice. Hence, in view of rule 26 (2), action taken by respondent no.2, in our view, is just, proper and sustainable in law. Consequently, decision of the Tribunal is also proper. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. Judge Judge hsj 4