Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The petitioner was a Physical Education Teacher working in a Government Higher Secondary School. He was charge sheeted under Rule 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973. This was on the ground that he had contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was in subsistence.
3. After conducting an enquiry it was found that the said charge was proved. The defence taken by the petitioner was that his first wife was suffering from a terminal decease had insisted that he should marry another person so that they can have a male child from out of the said marriage. He got the consent of his first wife and with the approval of the elders of the family. The Petitioner was removed from service by order dated 23.9.1994.
4. As against the order of removal the petitioner filed an appeal dated 24.10.1994 to the Director of School Education, Chennai, the second respondent. In the appeal he had stated that the marriage was performed at the instance of the first wife and the elders of the village and with the consent of the first wife who also wanted to have a male child through the second marriage. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Director of the School Education by order dated 24.7.1995. The petitioner filed a representation dated 4.9.95 by way of review before the Government vide his letter setting out the same defence. The said Review petition was rejected by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.178, School Education, dated 2.5.1997.
5. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8179/97 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of removal made against him. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.32197/2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of the dismissal the petitioner was only 52 years old and he had put in sufficient service.
6. It is seen from the records that the first marriage had taken place during the year 1967. Out of that marriage he had a girl child. The second marriage was performed during the year 1992 i.e., after a period of 25 years after the first marriage. Though the counsel for the petitioner pleaded for leniency in the punishment this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The petitioner is a school teacher and he should have been a role model for others in following the practice of monogamy. A bigamous marriage is not only prohibited under the Indian Penal Code and under the personal law but also by a specific conduct rule introduced as Rule 19(1) under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.
7. 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."
8. Every citizen of this country has to implement the fundamental duties enshrined under
Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and
Article 51-A(e) reads as under:
"51-A.(e)to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;" (Emphasis added)
9. Therefore, the petitioners contention that he had the consent of the first wife for the second marriage can never be a defence. Further the explanation offered by him that he wanted to have a male child is really an obscurantist idea which directly shower the indignity on women. Such derogatory practices has to be renounced in view of the fundamental duties of a Citizen of this country as noted above.
10. In the light of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
sal To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2.The Director of School Education DPI, College Road, Chennai 6
3.The Joint Director (Employees Section) College Road, Chennai 6
4.The Chief Educational Officer, Salem District