IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.04.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.31569 OF 2006 (T) (O.A.No.9908/2007) T.Sakthivel ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District East, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-16. 2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-16. ..Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in his THA.Pa.No.53/97, dated 1.3.97 and subsequent order issued by the first respondent in his Tha.Pa.No.G3/85143/93, dated 11.11.97 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Abdul Razak For Respondents: Mr.P.Gurunathan, GA ORDER The petitioner filed O.A.No.9908 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the orders, dated 1.3.1997 and 11.11.1997 passed by the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District. 2.The petitioner was working as a Grade II Police Constable. He was issued with a suspension order, dated 14.7.1992. Subsequently, he was given a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that on 7.6.1969, he married one Elizabeth, daughter of Thiru. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gnanaprakasam at Thiruttani as per the Hindu Marriage rites and was also carrying on family life. On 15.12.1989, his wife Elizabeth gave birth to a still-born girl child at VKN Clinic, Arakkonam. Thereafter, on 29.6.1991, he had a male child through her and it is now living with her. 3.On 5.7.1991, he married one Latha, daughter of Thiru.Perumalpillai by a registered marriage and was living with her. On 5.6.1992, when he was on medical leave, he was also involved in a criminal case. An enquiry was held against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charges. On 11.11.1997, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice, asking him to give his explanation on the enquiry report. Instead of furnishing his explanation, he moved the Tribunal with O.A.No.9908 of 1997, wherein he challenged the charge memo, dated 1.3.1997 and the notice, dated 11.11.1997, asking his explanation. 4.Pending O.A., the Tribunal granted an interim stay on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was appointed even along with the charge memo, which is violative of rules. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated Nil (1997). With reference to the second contention that the Enquiry Officer was appointed along with the charge memo, it was stated that it is only an information regarding the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the same is not violative of any rules. With reference to the merits of the charge, it was stated that the charges were proved on evidence. Since it is only at the stage of show cause notice, this court is not inclined to go into the defence taken by the petitioner. There is no illegality in the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and there is enough evidence to proceed against the petitioner. 5.The further contention that the first wife was Christian and therefore, there could not have been any marriage with her under the Hindu Marriage Act, cannot be accepted. On the involvement in the criminal case, his submission was that he was acquitted by the criminal court. These are all the matters, which will have to be raised before the Disciplinary Authority. Rule 23 of the Conduct Rules applicable to the petitioner reads as follows: "Rule 23. Bigamous Marriages:- 1.(a)No Police Officer shall enter into a contract marriage with a person having a spouse living and (b)No Police Officer having a spouse living shall enter into or contract a marriage with any person: Provided that the Government may permit a Police Officer to enter into or contract any such marriage as is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) if they are satisfied that, (i)such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Police Officer and the other party to the marriage; and (ii)there are other grounds for so doing. 2.No Police Officer shall involve himself in any act involving moral turpitude on his part including any unlawful act, which may cause embarrassment or which may bring discredit to Government." 6.Therefore, he cannot say that the first marriage will have to be proved in a manner known to law that may be a relevant ingredient in respect of Rule 23(1). For invoking Rule 23(2), there is no such requirement. When a question as to whether an husband who was discharged by a criminal court in an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. (bigamy) can be proceeded under the Government Servants Conduct Rules came up for consideration by the Supreme Court, it answered positively. The said decision is relating to State of Karnataka and another Vs. T.Venkataramanappa reported in 1996 (6) SCC 455. The following passage found in para 3 may be worth quoting: "The prosecution evidence in the criminal complaint may have fallen short of those standards but that does not mean that the State was in any way debarred from invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which forbids a government servant to marry a second time without the permission of the Government. But, here, the respondent being a Hindu, could never have been granted permission by the Government to marry a second time because of his personal law forbidding such marriage. It was thus beyond the ken of the Tribunal to have scuttled the departmental proceedings against the respondent on the footing that such question of bigamy should normally not be taken up for decision in departmental enquiries, as the decisions of competent courts tending to be decisions in rem would stand at the highest pedestal. There was a clear fallacy in such view because for purposes of Rule 28, such strict standards, as would warrant a conviction for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, may not, to begin with, be necessary." 7.In the light of the same, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition, at this stage. The interim stay granted by the Tribunal stands vacated. It is for the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the respondents shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vvk To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District East, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-16. 2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-16. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M. Abdul Rasack, Advocate. S.R.No.18259. W.P.NO.31569 OF 2006 SSN (CO) GSK 04.05.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/