IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 653 of 2004 Madan Singh Gusain ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. N. S. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri. N. S. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is a government employee. His first marriage was solemnized in the year 1974 and without the first marriage being dissolved or annulled, admittedly he entered into another marriage with another woman in the year 1986. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner where the principal charge against the petitioner was that he has violated Rule 29 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (from hereinafter referred to as Rules). Rule 29 of the Rules reads as follows: “Bigamous marriage.- (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. (2) No female Government Servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government.” 2 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner entered into a second marriage while the first spouse was surviving. According to the petitioner, both the wives are living with the petitioner. There is admittedly a clear violation of Rule 29 of the Rules. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner have been dismissed by the concerned Authorities. There is no occasion for interference in the said order. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.6.2011 Kuldeep