IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 155 of 2009 Between: K.Vijay Kumar S/o. Late Paul R/o. H.No. 6-9-138, Shivrampally Weaker Section Colony, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Director ( Admn. ) Appellate Authority Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy Government of India ( Ministry of Home Affairs) Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. Director ( Estt) & Disciplinary Authority, Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy Government of India ( Ministry of Home Affairs) Hyderabad. 3 The Administrative Officer( Estt.) Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy Government of India ( Ministry of Home Affairs) Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particfularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No. 924 of 2001 dated 11.12.2003 on the file of and to set aside the order as illegal, arbitrary, improper adn incorrect and the same is in violation of Art. 14,15,16 and 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.RAGHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.S.VARMA (ADDL CGSC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :155 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.924 of 2001 whereunder and whereby the Tribunal upheld the order dated 14.06.2001, in which the appellate authority confirmed the order dated 11.5.2000 of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service. 2. While the petitioner was working with the second respondent Academy as Safai Karamchari, he was involved in a Criminal case in F.I.R.No.178/98 on the file of Rajendranagar Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. After an investigation, the Police referred the case as “mistake of fact”. In the meanwhile, the authorities have issued a charge sheet vide Memorandum No.21011/05/98-Estt. dated 9.2.1999 against the petitioner and a detailed inquiry was conducted for the misconduct. The petitioner was furnished with the inquiry report and he submitted his representation to the said inquiry report and the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant Director (Admn.) vide Proceedings No.21011/5 98-Estt. dated 11.5.2000 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner, without preferring any appeal to the competent authority has submitted a representation, dated 15.12.2000 which was disposed of by the Director vide Memorandum, dated 5.2.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.261 of 2001. The respondents have taken a plea that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the petitioner to submit a detailed appeal against the punishment order dated 11.5.2000 to the competent appellate authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It was further directed that if such an appeal is received within the stipulated period, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal in accordance with rules ignoring the point of limitation and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on the following grounds: (a) Since the Criminal Case registered against him vide F.I.R. 178/98 under Section 363 of the I.P.C. was referred as mistake of fact, it was not proper to proceed against him departmentally; (b) In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur V. Durga Charan Hansdah (AIR 2001 SC 938), entering into second marriage by a person belonging to Scheduled Castes will not amount to any offence under law”. 3. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.Surajmani Stella Kajur v. Durga Charan Hansdah [1] wherein it has been held that entering into second marriage by a person will not amount to any offence under law. But the appellate authority, having observed that the said decision is applicable only to Scheduled Tribes in the light of exemption given to the Scheduled Tribes under Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and since the petitioner does not belong to ST community, the decision relied upon by him is of no help, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A., which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the criminal case was closed stating that it is a mistake of fact, the authorities ought not to have imposed harsh punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Further the learned counsel contended that non-furnishing of enquiry report and inviting explanation from the delinquent, would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition along with related material. A perusal of material on record coupled with the memorandum, dated 7.3.2000 would disclose that a copy of the inquiry report received from the Inquiring Authority was sent to the petitioner, and the petitioner having received the same, submitted his explanation, dated 4.4.2000. Apart from that, the Tribunal has examined the matter thoroughly. 6. It is relevant to extract Rule 21 of Government of India CCS (Conduct) Rules, which reads as under: Rule 21 of Central Civil Services Conduct Rules reads as under: (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person: Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract any such marriage as is referred to in Clause (1) or Clause (2), if it is satisfied that- (a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds for so doing. (3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than of Indian nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government. 7. In the instant case, when the first marriage is subsisting, the petitioner has contacted second marriage, which is a statutory prohibition under Rule 21 of the CCS Rules. In the teeth of the statutory prohibition as contemplated under Rule 21, the authority has exercised its jurisdiction and imposed punishment. 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 16-03-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} [1] AIR 2001 SC 938,