K. Rajesh v. The Registrar (Admn)

[ 3430 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION NO: 35702 OF 2024 Between:

'1 . Smt. Kommu Lavanva, Wio: Kommu Rajesh, aged about 32 years, Oil: *ouse Wife nyo: H.No.1-9-8, IV'lahankali Nagar, Narayankhed, Sangareddy District, Telangana State Pin Code 5022A6

2. K. Rajesh, S/o. Narayana, age 37 years, Occ. P1gce-sp Qgrye.r (Dismissed), - Junio?Civit Judges C5urt, Naiayankhed, Sangareddy District Fyo.HNol-9-8, Mihankali Nagir, Narayankhed, Sangareddy, Telangana State, Pin 502286 (The Name of petitioner No.1 is deleted as per court order dt: 311212024 in I.A. No.1/24 ) .,.PETITIONERS AND

1. The Registrar (Admn), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad'

2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Disciplinary Authority, sanga Reddy District.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with impugned order passed by the 1"t respondent vide D.(D). NoO212O23,C'4 (Con), dated 19.g.2024 against order dated 6.9.2022 of the 2nd respondent, imposing on the 2nd petitioner a major penalty of removal from service, vide his order No.317412O22, dated 6.9.2022 pursuant to Enquiry Report in Dis.No.516/2022dated 22.7.2022 of Enquiry officer-cum-senior civil Judge' Zaheerabad, a nd to quash the same to the extent of removal of service ofthe 2nd

petitioner from the rie,rvices of the 2nd respondent unit, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative to Articles 1,1, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia, and ,:xcessive, and resultantly to direct the respondents to re-instate the 2nd petitioner, into the services of the 2nd .espondent by imposing lesser penalty. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend operation of the orders dated 19.3.2024 in D.(D) A.No.212023, c.4 (Con.) passed by the '1"t respondent, and orders dated 6.9.2022 in D.E.No.112022, oas:sed by the 2nd respondent, to the extent of removar of 2nd petitioner from the services of the 2nd respondent, and to re-instate him into the services of the 2nd respondent, by imposing lesser penalty on the ilnd petitioner, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIVEK JAIN, SC FOR THE HlcH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA The Court made the following: ORDER I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE SUJOY PAUL & THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RAI{I WRIT PETITION No.357O2 oF 2o24 ORDER lper Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Radha Ranifi This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking "To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with impugned order passed by respondent No.1 vide D.(D) No.02/2023, C.4 (Con) dated 19.O3.2024 against the order dated 06.O9.2022 of respondent No.2, imposing the petitioner a rrrajor penalty of removal from service vide order No.3l74l2O22 dated 06.09.2022 pursuant to Enquiry Report in Dis.No.5i6l2O22 dated 22.O7.2C22 of trnquiry Officer - cum - Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad and to quash rhe same to the extent of removal of service of the petitioner from the services of respondent No.

2 Unit, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and excessive and resultantly to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into the services of respondent No.2 bf irnposing lesser penalty and to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

SP, J & Dr.GRR, v;p 35702 2O24 2.

Heard Sri V. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned courlsel for the petitioner and Srr Vivek Jain, learned Stalding Counsei for the High Court for the Sterte of Telangana.

3.

Learned cc,unsel for the petitioner submitted that Lhe petitioner was appointed as an Office Sub-Ordinate in the Court o- Junior Civil Judge, Naravanl<herl in the year 2016 in the unit of respondent No.2 on compassionar:e grounds after the death of his father, due to heart * attack. Subseque.ntly, he was promoted to the post of Plocess Server in the year 2022. The petitioner was married in the year 2009 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, he was ble-ssed with t\,vo female children. In the year 2013, the wife of the petitioner gor affected with epilepsl, ald mental disorder besides other health issues. With her conselt, the petitioner married one Santoshini on 22.03.2022. Tht: father of Santoshini, who was not inter-ested in the said marriage, lited a criminal case besides hling a complaint before respondent No.2 authority.

The respondent No.2 authority initiated departmental enqr-riry against the petitioner. The petitionr;r denied the charge. Hor,r,ever, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquirv Officer submitted his report to the respondent No.2 holding the charge as proved. Basing on the enquiry report, after giving fina: notice, the petitioner u,as a.* arded u,ith major penalty of remor.al .rom service from the senice of respondent No.2 vide orders in D.tr.No.

SP,J&Dr.GRR'J wp-35702-2024 Dis.No.3174l2022 dated 06.09.2022. Challengrng the same, the petitioner preferred al appeal. But the respondent No l dismissed the said appeal vide impugned orders dated 19 'O3 '2024 in D. (D).No.2/2023, C.4 (Con).

3. 1 .. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the penalty imposed by the respondents against the petitioner was disproportionate to the misconduct proven against him' The respondents ought to have imposed a lesser punishment' The punishment of removal from service was shockingly dispropo{tionate ' The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty merely on the basis of his admission, but failed to observe that no witnesses r.r'ere examined before the Enquiry officer to establish that the petitioner performed second marriage as per Hindu rites and customs' 3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division BenchjudgmentoftheAllahabadHighCourtinPrabhatBhatnagarv.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1 wherein the punishment for misconduct, as per Rule 29 of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules, was imposed as withholding of increments for three years and the court directed reinstatement of the petitioner within a month from the receipt of the certified copy of the order and further placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Guwah"ti H# Court in Writ '2023 Li.

SP, J & Dr.GRR, w'p_35702-2024 Appeal No.357 ol' 2022 in Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath2 dated 18.01.2023, wherein considering that the writ petitioner had a child from the first marriage, who was about 15 yeal-s and if the penalty of dismirssial vvas to be upheld, it would cut off th: only source of income nol- o.:l.n for him but also for his first wife, her rlaughter ald his second r.r'.ife and considering that the dismissal was the extreme form of punishment, which has the effect of not only cutting off the source of incomr:, depriving him ald his dependants of ,,he means of sustenance, held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of tLre first marriage, though was in violation of rules, yet, it could not be sraid that it was one of the most heirLous form of misconducts, for u.hich he must be necessarily visited with the punishment of dismissal, ordered a lesser punishment. 4.

Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangara on the other hald contended that basing on a complaint received from one Sri G.Venugopal on O2.O4.2O22 alleging that the petitioner incluced his daughter to accompany him and forcibiy married her, ie criminal case in Crime No.70 of 2022 was filed on the file of the Narayankhed Police Station and the said comgrlainant also lodged a complaint u,ith respondent No.2 authority. An explanation was called for from the petitioner and not satisfied u,ith the '2023 Liye Lar,r. ((iiru i 24

SP' ., & DT.GRR' J w9-35702-2024 explanation submitted by the petitioner' an enquiry was initiated- The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct of marrying Kum' Salthoshini during the subsistence of his first marriage and found that he had violated Rule 'I Services (CCA) and Conduct Rules' 1964' The 2 5( i ) of Telangana Ctvr enquiry report was furnished to the d'elinquent and thereafter the respondent No.2 imposed the penalty of removal from service on 06.09.2022. The petitioner also preferred an appeal to respondent No.1. The respondent No' 1 being satisfied that no grounds were made to disprove the charge against the appellant and there \lras no error in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority' observed that there was no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal'

5.

Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khursheed Ahmad Khan v' State of Uttar Pradesh and Others3 on the aspect that performing a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, is considered as a misconduct and removal of the petitioner from service could not be held to be disproportionate to the charge on established judiciai parameters'

' (2015) 8 SCC 439 t

SP, J & Dr.GRR, w9_3s7O2 2024 6.

As seen fr,orrr the record, basing on the complaint filed by one Sri G.Venugopal on 02.O4.2022 before respondent No.2 that the petitioner, who was workirrg as a Process Server in Narayalkhed Oourt induced his daughter l{um.G.Santoshini to accompany him and forcibly married her and that he also filed a criminal case in Crime No.7O of 2022 on the file of the Narayankhed police Station, an explanation was called by respo.n,Cent No.2 from the petitioner (delinquent) and not being satisf,red .n ith the explalation provided b1, him, charges were framed against Lrim as follows:

Articles of Charge "That you, Sri K.Rajesh, Process Server, Junior Civil Judg;e,s Court, Narayankhed having hrst marriage in subsistence and said to have been having t\a.o children and married secor rd lime Kum. G.San,-oshini by abducting her from the custocly of her parents as p,3r'the recitals of FiR in Crime No.7O of 2O.22 under Section 366 of IPC ot PS Narayankhed and you Sri l(.Rajesh, Process Servel contacted Second Marriage indulging Eiigamous marriage and misconducted yourself within the meaning of Rule 25(1) of Telang.ana Civil Sen'ices (CCA) and Concluct Rules, 1964 and rendercd ,r.ourself liable for disciplinary action under Rule 20 of Telanganzr rlivil Serv-ices (CCA) Rules, 1991." 7.

The learned Senior Civil Judge, Zalteerabad was aippointed as Enquiry Ofhcer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquirv, found that the said charge rvas proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer srrbmitted his repofr on 22.O2.2022. On receipt of the

SP'J&Dr'GRR'J wP-35702-2024 report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authodry called for explanation from the petitioner duly furnishing copy of the report and on receipt of the written submission from the petitioner' the Disciplinary Authority i.e' the respondent No 2 passed a ltnal order dated 06.09.2022 irrrpostng major penalty of removal of the petitioner tfrom service' The Appellate Authority i e' respondent No 1 observed that as per the report of the Enquiry Officer' the petitioner got married Kum G. Santoshini, while his earlier marriage with K'Lavanya was subsisting ald that Mrs'K'Lavanya filed a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC and another application seeking maintenance against the petitioner herein. The petitioner admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he married G.

Santoshini during the subsistence of the marriage with K.

8.

The respondent No' 1 - the Appellate Authority also considered the contention of the appelrant that his -"

1: "P;:;,"".._ contracting second marri'ge' but opined that \

SP, J & Dr.

wP 35702-2024 as such consent \vas illegal and void. If such consent wrls permitted, then the very FrLtrpose arrd object of the Conduct Rules would be defeated. The public servant by reiying on the consent of the first wife, could not seek protection from the Conduct Ruies, which otherwise prohibit contra.c.[ing of second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. 'lhe respondent No.1 also observed that :he appellant neither prodttceri an1' medical reports to prove the ill-health of his first wife, nor examlned the doctor to that effect and that he frilled to make out any grouncl .c, disprove the charge against him and hr:ld that there was no reasorr to interfere with the penaity imposed by the Disciplinarl' AlLt h :rity.

g.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh :rnd Others (cited supra), vvherein also t.he validity of the order removing the appellant from service for proved rnisconduct of contracting anot.her marriage during subsistence of the lirst marriage, without permissic,n of the Government, in violation of Ru e 29(1) of UP Government Serviants Conduct Rules, 1956, rn'as challenfled, held that: "9. Learned counsel for the State also subrnits that the valirlity of the impugned C.onrluct Rule is not operr to question on the gror nd that it violated Articl,: 25 of the Constitution in vie'w of the law laid down by this court in Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of Iadia [(1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 5691 Hr: further submitted that the High Court r.r,'as j ustified in holding that the punishment of remova-l could not be held to be shockingh. disproportionate to the charge ald dicl aot call for any interference

SP,J&Dr.GRR,J wp_35702_2024 I I. As already mentioned above, there is adequate material on record in support of the charge against the appellant that he performed second marriage during the currency of the frrst marriage. Admittedly, there is no intimation in any form on record that the appellant had divorced his hrst wife. In senice record she continued to be mentioned as the wife of the appellant. Moreover, she has given a statement in inquiry proceedings that she continued to be wife of the appellant. The appellant a-lso admitted in inquiry conducted on directions of the Human Rights Commission that his hrst marriage had continued. In these circumstarces, the hnding of violation of Conduct Rules cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court. In these circumstalces, the High Court was justified in holding that the penalty of removal iannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge on established judicial parameters."

10. In the present case also, the Enquiry Report would disclose that the petitioner performed the second marriage with G.Santoshini during the subsistence of his marriage with K. Lavanya and had taken the defence that he got married with the consent of K.Lavanya. Any consent, which was against the Conduct Rules, could not be considered as a valid consent as far as the public servants are concerned. When the Service Rules contemplate a prohibition arld \ described a particular conduct as a misconduct, then the public servant has to follow the conduct. Even in'the case of consent, he is expected to reject the consent. The public servant could not take protection by stating that his first wife has given consent and therefore he contracted second marriage. The Enquiry Ofhcer, after examining the witnesses and on considering the documenta4z evidence filed before him, found the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. The Discipiinary Authority also on considering the entire material available on record and the findings of the Enquiry Officer

SP, J & Dr.

wp'35702_2024 i1.

arrd the seriousness of the charge levelled against him, mposed the penalty of removeLl from service. This Court considers thar the penalty of removal was not shockingly disproportionate to the chruge levelled against the petitioner and the finding was not found to be perverse or un-reasonable, u'hLich calls for anl'' interference by this Court. No humanitarian grounds can be considered when the pueishment is found to be proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner.

11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any shall stand closed.

SD/. P.CH.NAGAI}HUSHAMBA STRAR AN //TRUE COPY// FFICER To, one cc to S1i.r/ 1ailP-htflf5,"+fl1',#,ILTii!SI#8L"" cf reransana, one CC to Sri Vivek Jatn, I at HyderabadlOPUCI Two CD CoPies w TJ BSR

II HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024 F't 1 riE STlr e Q :.

s o lu(l 2I Ftl

ORDER

-Ds's- \_=:- , WP.No.35702 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,dd <) &* I I I I i I