The Madras high court has set aside an order reinstating a government servant compulsorily retired from service after his second marriage in 1990 for violating a provision of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.Justice K Chandru passed orders on a writ petition filed by S Thangavelu's second wife, Rajeswari, who sought to be reinstated in service herself with all consequential benefits.
Thangavelu, a junior assistant in the department of Treasuries and Accounts, married K Rajeswari, a store keeper in the Government Health department in Salem district, on January 8, 1990. Since Thangavelu was already married with two children and was unwilling to divorce his first wife, the couple got married with her consent, the petition stated.
Following complaints to their respective department heads, both individuals were dismissed from service as Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules prohibits bigamous marriage (a provision that prohibits government servants from entering into a marriage with a person having a spouse living and vice-versa).
Thangavelu approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to revoke the order and was reinstated after his application was allowed in 1995. However, Rajeswari was removed from service by an order dated October 31, 2000 following which she filed the present writ petition.
Justice Chandru observed that even with the consent of the first wife, [in] a marriage among persons covered by Hindu law, it is a criminal offence under Section 494 of the IPC as well as a misconduct under the Conduct Rules.
It is rather unfortunate that the government did not challenge the order of the Tribunal quashing the dismissal order of the husband and reinstated him. If for the misconduct found under the Conduct Rules, if the husband who is already a married man can be let off without any penalty, the petitioner (Rajeswari) who is an unmarried woman and who became a consulting party to the second marriage cannot be punished severly,' the judge said.
Pointing out that the state authorities could not adopt two different yardsticks to impose a penalty on one and the same transaction', Justice Chandru noted, If the husband of the petitioner who is equally guilty of the offence was let off by the same government, there is no reason why the petitioner should be inflicted with the extreme penalty of dismissal.'
Since the authorities had not indicated any special reason for treating Rajeswari differently except by stating that the husband and wife worked in two different departments, the order has to be necessarily set aside,' the judge said while allowing the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment