1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5066/2002. : : Ramdev Maurya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 2.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Rajveer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that charge-sheet dated 10.7.2002 be quashed and set aside. 3. Shri Rajveer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint against the petitioner is that he has contracted second marriage with Ratna Devi and such complaint is being made at the instance of first wife since 1984. The respondents have now issued to him this charge-sheet dated 10.7.2002 when he was going to retire and he was retired on 31.7.2002. It is submitted that police in its report on 15.9.1995 appears to have submitted enquiry 2 report to the respondents for the second marriage of the petitioner, but the respondents did not for seven years take any action and charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner belatedly on 10.7.2002. Learned counsel cited judgments of Supreme Court in Ministry of Finance and Anr. Vs. S.B.Ramesh : AIR 1998 SC 853 and Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr. Vs. State of Maharastra : AIR 1965 SCC 1564. It was argued that enquiry cannot be held on a complaint which was made in 1981 after a long period of time as the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner 10.7.2002 i.e. 21 years thereafter. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied in the case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.T.N.Housing Board : 2005 (6) SCC, 636. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner himself has in service record relating to group insurance nominated Smt. Ratna Devi as his wife and now contends that Smt. Ratna Devi could not be treated as his wife. It was argued that Smt. Munni was the first wife of the petitioner and this adopted on the basis of charge-sheet. It is submitted that police submitted report in 1995 and the charge-sheet was issued in 3 2002, there cannot be said to be enormous delay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that petitioner never submitted nomination in favour of Smt. Ratna Devi and that if someone else has submitted such nomination on his behalf, he cannot be blamed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that judgment of Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande (supra) on which reliance is placed deals with the standard of proof required for offence under Section 495 IPC and in the present matter, the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner for departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court in SB Ramesh (supra) reversing the finding of Central Industrial Tribunal, which held that there is no law in our country which makes sexual relationship confined to legal wedlock unless the relationship is adulterous or promiscuous. There is no law prohibiting such a residence and what transpired between them is not a concern of their employer and that on account of fact of delinquent living with another woman, it cannot be said that reputation of the employer among the general public has been lowered, such observations of Tribunal were 4 strongly disapproved by Supreme Court. Even otherwise, contracting second marriage except when permitted by personal law has been debarred by Rule 25 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the respondents are not entitled to issue charge-sheet, whether or not there was delay. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed. The respondents are directed to conclude enquiry within a period of six months. This direction however shall be subject to co-operation of petitioner. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.43.