ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.738 of 2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the petitioner. In this Writ Petition he is challenging the order dated 11/04/2008 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was a Head Clerk in the Thiruvananthapuram Division of Southern Railways. He was issued Annexure-A4 charge sheet. The substance of the allegation against the petitioner was that, concealing his first marriage with Smt.K.Omana solemnized on 12/11/1989, he contracted a second marriage with Smt.P.N.Valsamma, on 30/4/1993 at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Pattom, Muttada. His explanation was found to be unsatisfactory and an enquiry was conducted.
4. Annexure-A7 is the report of the Enquiry Officer, where the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. To cut a long story short, suffice it to say that, by Annexure-A1 order dated 12/8/2004, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 13/8/2004. The order was confirmed by rejecting his appeal and revision. It was in these circumstances, challenging the above proceedings, O.A.No.738/2005 was filed by him.
5. Before the Tribunal, the respondents produced a copy of the decree passed by the Sub Court, Mavelikkara in O.P.(HMA)No.91 of 1994 dated 05/02/2000. That was an Original Petition filed by Omana seeking a decree of divorce against the petitioner and the Sub Court decreed the O.P. as prayed for, by its decree referred to above. Referring to the decree passed by the Sub Court and holding that his first marriage with Omana was thus valid and that the second marriage constituted the misconduct alleged, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by Ext.P1 order. It is this order which is under challenge before us.
6. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the marriage with Omana and contended that the charge was not established, having regard to the above decree passed by the Civil Court, we cannot accept the said contention. Once the marriage with Omana was thus recognized by the Civil Court and a decree of divorce is passed, the fact of first marriage is thus established and cannot be disputed. If so, that second marriage he contracted with Valsamma certainly is a misconduct as alleged in Annexure-A4 memo of charges.
7. For this misconduct though the petitioner is liable to be visited with punishment, the question remains is that whether the penalty of removal from service imposed by Annexure-A1 order is proportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. The petitioner has rendered a very long service under the respondent from 1984 and his misconduct proved against the petitioner did not resulting in any loss or damages to the employer. Considering these facts and also that his previous service was an unblemished one, we do not think that the extreme punishment of removal from service depriving the petitioner of the terminal benefits for the long service that he has rendered is a disproportionate and harsh one. Therefore, we modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner to one of compulsory retirement.
Accordingly, we dispose of this Writ Petition directing that the punishment imposed on the petitioner as per Annexure-A1 dated 12/8/2004 will stand modified as one of compulsory retirement instead of one of removal from service as ordered by the respondent. The respondent will settle the consequent monetary liability due, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE skj ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE