# Manbir Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1008
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 15656 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manbir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46445
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
Pension - U.P. Government Servants' Conduct
Rules, 1956 - Rule 29 - A plain reading of
Rule 29 reveals that a Government servant
cannot marry again without permission of
the state Government. The legislature to
their
wisdom
has
used
the
word
"notwithstanding" which means, even if the
marriage is permissible under personal law
for
the
time
being
applicable
to
a
Government
servant,
such
Government
servant cannot be allowed to marry again
without permission of the state Government.
(Para 19)
11 All. Manbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1009
The act of performing a second marriage during the
life-time of one's wife cannot be regarded as an
integral part of Hindu religion nor could it be regarded
as practising or professing or propagating Hindu
religion and even if bigamy be regarded as an integral
part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P.
Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 requiring
permission of the Government before contracting
such marriage must be held to come under the
protection of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
(Para 20)

B. Misconduct on the part of the petitioner
amounts to grave misconduct so as to attract
Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956 read with Article
351A of the Civil Services Regulation. The
petitioner has misrepresented before the authorities
and made every effort to mislead them as if he has
not contracted the second marriage. The conduct of
the petitioner is in breach of the Rules, 1956 and
unbecoming of a Government servant. The conduct of
the petitioner was a gross-misconduct and the
provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956 read with
Article 351A of the Civil Services Regulations were
rightly invoked. (Para 23)

C. Once the 1956 Rules provides that second
marriage by a Government servant during the
lifetime of first wife is an offence, and it
amounts to misconduct, then it is not open for
the Court to take a different view than what
has
been
considered
by
the
disciplinary
authority. (Para 19)

Constitution of India: Article 226 - Scope -
The scope of interference with the order of the
Tribunal by this Court u/Article 226 exercising
extra-ordinary,
equitable
and
discretionary
jurisdiction, has its own limits. The scope of
judicial review is extended only when
there is no evidence or the conclusion or
finding is such as no reasonable person
would have ever reached on the basis of
the
material
available.
Performance
of
second marriage during currency of the first
marriage resulting in punishment of removal
from service cannot be held to be shockingly
disproportionate to the charge on established
judicial parameters. In the present case, the
findings recorded by the Tribunal in the
impugned order are findings of fact based on
consideration
of
relevant
evidences
and
materials on record. (Para 21, 25)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned counsel for the petitioner based upon
Regulations 492 & 493 of Police Regulation is
misplaced and is not sustainable in law, since in
the instant case only charge sheet in the criminal
case has been filed, and trial is yet to begin.

22. Now, coming to the second limb of
argument that whether disciplinary proceeding
and the criminal proceeding can proceed
simultaneously where both proceedings have
been initiated on the same set of charges and
evidence in both the proceedings are identical
and shall prejudice the criminal proceeding since
petitioner would have to disclose the defence
which he wants to take in the criminal
proceeding. In the opinion of the Court, the said
submission is also misconceived for two
reasons; firstly, as detailed above, the charge
against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding
and disciplinary proceeding are not identical as
there is one additional charge in the disciplinary
proceeding which has been delineated above.
Secondly, to succeed, the petitioner has to
demonstrate that charge against the petitioner is
grave and involves complicated questions of fact
and law, and further if the disciplinary
proceeding is continued that would prejudice the
criminal trial of the petitioner.

23. In the case in hand, though a bald
averment has been made in the writ petition in
paragraph 31 that continuance of disciplinary
proceeding would prejudice the criminal trial,
there is no pleading in the writ petition as to how
continuance of disciplinary proceeding would
prejudice the criminal trial of the petitioner.

24. As the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that charge against the petitioner is
grave and involves complicated questions of fact
and law, and further how the continuance of
disciplinary proceeding would prejudice the
criminal trial of the petitioner, this Court is not
inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage,
it is pertinent to mention that early conclusion of
the disciplinary proceeding is good in the
interest of the employee as well as the
department for the reason that if the employee is
exonerated from the charges, he may not be out
of service unnecessarily and may be reinstated,
and if the employee is found guilty, the
department will get rid of such employee who is
not worth continuing in the employment.

25. Thus, for the reasons given above, the
writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1008
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J

Writ-A No. 15656 of 2021

Manbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Kumar Khare (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
Pension - U.P. Government Servants' Conduct
Rules, 1956 - Rule 29 - A plain reading of
Rule 29 reveals that a Government servant
cannot marry again without permission of
the state Government. The legislature to
their
wisdom
has
used
the
word
"notwithstanding" which means, even if the
marriage is permissible under personal law
for
the
time
being
applicable
to
a
Government
servant,
such
Government
servant cannot be allowed to marry again
without permission of the state Government.
(Para 19)
11 All. Manbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1009
The act of performing a second marriage during the
life-time of one's wife cannot be regarded as an
integral part of Hindu religion nor could it be regarded
as practising or professing or propagating Hindu
religion and even if bigamy be regarded as an integral
part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P.
Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 requiring
permission of the Government before contracting
such marriage must be held to come under the
protection of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.
(Para 20)

B. Misconduct on the part of the petitioner
amounts to grave misconduct so as to attract
Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956 read with Article
351A of the Civil Services Regulation. The
petitioner has misrepresented before the authorities
and made every effort to mislead them as if he has
not contracted the second marriage. The conduct of
the petitioner is in breach of the Rules, 1956 and
unbecoming of a Government servant. The conduct of
the petitioner was a gross-misconduct and the
provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956 read with
Article 351A of the Civil Services Regulations were
rightly invoked. (Para 23)

C. Once the 1956 Rules provides that second
marriage by a Government servant during the
lifetime of first wife is an offence, and it
amounts to misconduct, then it is not open for
the Court to take a different view than what
has
been
considered
by
the
disciplinary
authority. (Para 19)

Constitution of India: Article 226 - Scope -
The scope of interference with the order of the
Tribunal by this Court u/Article 226 exercising
extra-ordinary,
equitable
and
discretionary
jurisdiction, has its own limits. The scope of
judicial review is extended only when
there is no evidence or the conclusion or
finding is such as no reasonable person
would have ever reached on the basis of
the
material
available.
Performance
of
second marriage during currency of the first
marriage resulting in punishment of removal
from service cannot be held to be shockingly
disproportionate to the charge on established
judicial parameters. In the present case, the
findings recorded by the Tribunal in the
impugned order are findings of fact based on
consideration
of
relevant
evidences
and
materials on record. (Para 21, 25)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Pawan Kumar Misra Vs St.of U.P. thru its Principal
Secretary Home, Government of U.P. & ors., Special
Appeal No. 570 of 2012, decided on 02.05.2014 (Para
19)

2. Javed Vs St. of Har., (2003) 8 SCC 369 (Para 20)

3. Ram Prasad Seth Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1957 All. 411
(Para 20)

4. Badruddin Vs Aisha Begum, 1957 All. LJ 300 (Para
20)

5. Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 8
SCC 439 (Para 21)

6. Veerpal Singh Vs Senior Superintendent of Police,
Agra, & ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27190 of
1997 (Para 22)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) Vs Satya Narayan & ors., (1994)
5 SCC 545 (Para 10)

2. Aneeta Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
24493 of 2015, decided on 02.05.2016 (Para 10)

3. Gorel Lal Verma Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
5204 of 2021, decided on 14.07.2021 (Para 10)

Present
petition
assails
judgment
dated
02.09.2021, passed by State Public Service
Tribunal, Lucknow and order dated 28.06.2005,
passed by State Government.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior
advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.
Subhash
Rathi,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying
for the following relief:
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(i) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the Judgment
dated 02.09.2021 passed by the State Public
Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.
1350 of 2006 (Manbir Singh Vs. State of UP &
Others). (Annexure 16 to the writ petition).

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
28.06.2005 passed by the State Government
(Annexure 13 to the writ petition).

(iii) a writ, order or direction of a
suitable nature commanding the respondent to
fix the final pension of the petitioner and to
disburse the same regularly, every month along
with all arrears arisen on account of the
difference between the provisional pension and
the final pension within a period to be specified
by this Hon'ble court.

(iv) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit
and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) award cost to the humble petitioner
throughout of the present writ petition."

Facts:-

3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case
are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Prosecutor on 05.09.1970. Subsequently, he was
promoted on the post of Public Prosecutor and
further promoted on the post of Senior Public
Prosecutor on 17.07.1999. He retired from
service on 31.12.2004.

4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of complaint
of his wife Smt. Rajendri Devi. A charge-sheet
dated 15.09.1987 was served upon him.
Another disciplinary proceeding was also
initiated against the petitioner on the basis of
similar allegations by virtue of charge sheet
dated 30.06.1992 and the inquiry proceeding
was conducted. Subsequently, the matter
arising from the first inquiry was compromised
before the A.D.M. Saharanpur on the basis of
some statement allegedly made by the aforesaid
Smt.
Rajendri
Devi.
Consequently,
the
proceeding against the petitioner, was dropped
on 13.06.1997. The second inquiry also met the
same fate in the light of the alleged statement
of Smt. Rajendri Devi. From records, it appears
that the aforesaid Smt. Rajednra Devi has also
stated that no children were born from the
wedlock of the petitioner.

5. Subsequently, it came to light that the
petitioner has two children, namely daughter -
Kumari Preeti and son - Sangeet Chaudhari
from the wedlock of one Rajni Devi. The
petitioner
moved
an
application
dated
13.07.1999 for taking benefit of family
planning in which he also decleared that he has
two children. On these facts, amongst others,
coming to light, a fresh inquiry was initiated
against the petitioner on 07.11.2003. A chargesheet was issued. The petitioner appeared
before the inquiry officer and led evidences.
However, for reasons best-known to him, he
did not produce Smt. Rajendri Devi and instead
took the stand that Rajendri Devi and Smt.
Rajni Devi, both are one and the same person
who is his legally wedded wife and as such,
there is no question of second marriage.

6. When the petitioner did not produce
Smt. Rajendri Devi before the inquiry officer,
then the inquiry officer himself took the
statement of Smt. Rajendri Devi, who stated that
she is not Rajni Devi. She stated that she is the
first wife and she is daughter of one Amrit
Singh,
resident
of
Meerpurkalan,
P.S.
Babugarh,
Post
Ghunghral,
Hapur,
Ghaziabad. She further stated that second wife
of the petitioner is Smt. Rajni Devi who is
daughter of one Chhatar Singh, resident of
Hanuman
Teela,
Khurja,
District
Bulandshahar. The inquiry officer also afforded
opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine
the aforesaid Smt. Rajendri Devi but the
petitioner did not appear to cross-examine her.
11 All. Manbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1011

7. Based on evidences on record, the
inquiry officer concluded that Rajednri Devi is
the first wife of the petitioner and without
permission from the State Government as
required under Rule 29 of the U.P. Government
Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as ''the Rules, 1956'), the petitioner
contracted the second marriage with one Smt.
Rajni Devi, daughter of Chhatar Singh and has
also led false evidences knowing fully well that
he has contracted second marriage with Rajni
Devi. After following due procedure of law, the
appointing authority awarded punishment to the
petitioner by forfeiting his pension inasmuch as
before the order of punishment dated 28.06.2005
was passed, the petitioner had retired from
service on 31.12.2004. Aggrieved with the
aforesaid
order
of
punishment/
office
memorandum dated 28.06.2005, the petitioner
filed Claim Petition No.1350 of 2006 before the
State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan,
Lucknow, which was dismissed by the impugned
order dated 02.09.2021.

8. In paragraphs 14 to 25 of the impugned
order dated 02.09.2021, the Tribunal has
recorded the following findings of fact:-

"14. It appears from record that Smt.
Rajendri Devi wife of petitioner had made a
complaint against petitioner on 28.09.1978 in
which she had stated that petitioner had married
with another lady namely Smt. Rajni Devi. She
could not give birth to any child. Before A.D.M.
Smt. Rajendri Devi appeared before enquiry
officer and filed her affidavit to the effect that
since no child was born with her and Manbir
Singh, she was mentally upset and that is why
due to some misunderstanding, she had made a
false complaint against her husband and now
she did not want to pursue the matter. They have
compromised before A.DM. Saharanpur, as such
A.DM. dropped the matter against petitioner on
13.06.1997. Since this enquiry was dropped on
the basis of compromise, and this time there is
additional charge of giving wrong facts and
concealment of facts, state government is fully
justified to institute fresh enquiry, as such
principle of double jeopardy does not apply in
this case.

15. Study of enquiry report reveals that
petitioner was given 4 opportunities to crossexamine Smt. Rajendri Devi, but he did not turn
up.

16. Record also shows that petitioner has
given his statement before enquiry officer on
10.01.2004 that his family members had
changed the name of his wife from Smt. Rajendri
Devi to Rajni Devi on the advice of astrologers
and pandits. Statements of gram pradhan Sri
Kishan Pal Singh, Shiv Kumar and Mahipal
Singh were recorded by enquiry officer. They
have given their statements in favour of
petitioner. Another witness Sri Vijendra Singh
has certified the family register issued by him on
25.12.2003.

17. In the birth certificate of petitioner's
son Sri Sangcet Chaudhary issued by Nagar
Panchayat, Mathura, name of mother of his son
is mentioned as Rajni Devi and not Rajendri
Devi. This is admitted by Petitioner.

18. Smt. Rajendri Devi has given statement
before enquiry officer that she has no child and
her name was never changed as Rajni Devi.
Rajni Devi is a different lady from whom
petitioner had conducted marriage and they
have two children.

19. We find from record that petitioner in
his application dated 30.06.1988 given before
Dy. Director, Prosecution, himself admitted that
he had married with Smt. Rajendri Devi and
also admitted that she has no child while he has
given an application dated 10.5.1999 claiming
extra increment under family planning scheme
that he has two children namely Km. Preeti
Chaudhary and Sri Sangeet Chaudhary born in
1982 and 1984 respectively. This is own
admission of petitioner. Since Rajendri Devi has
no child as admitted by petitioner, he performed
second marriage with Smt. Rajni Devi with
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whom two children were born in the year 1982
and 1984.

20. Thus, from his own admission and
material available on record, it is established
that petitioner had performed second marriage
with Rajini Devi during the life time of his
legally wedded wife Smt. Rajendi Devi, without
permission of government.

21. It is evidently proved from the record
that petitioner had not given correct facts before
A.DM. Saharanpur in the earlier enquiry and
concealed the material facts due to which
enquiry was dropped.

22. So far as punishment is concerned.
learned counsel has submitted that respondents
should have taken a lenient view while awarding
punishment and major punishment should not
have been inflicted upon petitioner.

23. He has referred to a decision of Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court given in the case of
Shravan Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P & others
in writ petition no.70379 of 2009 regarding Rule
29 of U.P. Government. Servants Conduct Rules,
1956. We could not find any provision which
prohibits the state government from awarding
major punishment.

24. Submission that enquiry could not be
instituted for 4 years old. We find that petitioner
raised the issue on 10.05.1999 claiming extra
increment under family planning scheme on the
ground that he had two children, while he had
earlier concealed this material fact. On account
of admitted facts of petitioner, enquiry was again
instituted on 25.03.2003 before retirement of
petitioner. Due to concealment of the facts and
compromise reached between petitioner and
Rajendri Devi, enquiry was dropped by A.D.M.
In the year 1997, as such this submission of
learned counsel fails.

25. Petitioner not only performed second
marriage with Rajni Devi without taking
permission of state government during life time
of his first wife, but he also tried to mislead the
state government by concealing the material
facts that he has two children."

Submissions:-

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has not contracted a
valid marriage with Smt. Rajni Devi and as such
in the absence of any proof of his legal marriage
with Smt. Rajni Devi, the question of
contracting second marriage does not arise at all,
as well as provisions of Rule 29 shall also not be
attracted.

10. He, therefore, submits that the
impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well
as by the disciplinary authority deserve to be
quashed. In support of his submissions, he relied
upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of (1994) 5 SCC 545 Laxmi Devi
(Smt.) vs. Satya Narayan and others and two
single Judge judgments of this Court, i.e.
Aneeta Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 5 others in
Writ-A No.24493 of 2015, decided on
02.05.2016 and Gore Lal Verma vs. State of
U.P. and 4 others in Writ-A No.5204 of 2021,
decided on 14.07.2021.

11. Learned Standing Counsel has
supported the impugned orders.

Discussion and Findings:-

12.

We
have
carefully
considered
submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records of the writ
petition.

13. Perusal of the record shows that the
first enquiry was dropped against the petitioner
on the basis of the alleged compromise of Smt.
Rajendri Devi. The second enquiry also met
with the same fate as departmental proceeding
was dropped. The third enquiry was initiated
on the basis of the materials coming into the
hands of the department, which indicated that
the petitioner has contracted the second marriage
and he had misrepresented. In the third enquiry,
11 All. Manbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1013
charges were found proved against the petitioner
on the basis of the evidences available on record.

14. We have perused the enquiry report and
we find that the case set up by the petitioner was
that Rajendri Devi and Rajni Devi were one and
the same person. The said stand was disbelieved
by the enquiry officer and it was held that
Rajendri Devi and Rajni Devi are two different
persons, as the first wife Smt. Rajendri Devi is
the daughter of Amrit Singh, resident of
Meerpurkalan, P.S. Babugarh, Post Ghunghral,
Hapur, Ghaziabad and Smt. Rajni Devi (second
wife) is the daughter of one Chhatar Singh,
resident of Hanuman Teela, Khurja, District
Bulandshahr.

15. A specific finding of fact has also been
recorded by the enquiry officer on the admitted
facts that with the wedlock of petitioner and
Smt. Rajni Devi, two children were born namely
Km. Priti and Sangeet Chaudhary. Thoroughly
inconsistent and contradictory stand has been
taken by the petitioner right from the very
inception. On one hand, he has come up with the
story that Rajendri Devi and Rajni Devi are one
and the same person and on the other hand, he
has taken the stand before us that Smt. Rajni
Devi is not his legally wedded wife. Both the
stands cannot co-exist. It was not disputed by the
petitioner either before the inquiry officer or
before the Tribunal that Smt. Rajni Devi is his
legally wedded wife. Therefore, the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he
has not legally contracted second marriage with
aforesaid Rajni Devi, has no legs to stand.

16. It is admitted case of the petitioner that
no issue was born from Smt. Rajendri Devi.
Smt. Rajendri Devi has stated that she is not
Rajni Devi and no issue has born to her from the
wedlock of the petitioner. Statement of Smt.
Rajendri Devi was recorded by the inquiry
officer who afforded opportunity to the
petitioner to cross-examine Rajendri Devi, but
the petitioner did not appear to cross-examine
her. The petitioner could not dispute that he has
two children, namely Kumari Preeti and Sangeet
Chaudhary. The name of mother of these two
children as per school certificates and municipal
records is Smt. Rajni Devi and petitioner is
shown as father of these two children. This
clearly indicates that the petitioner and Smt.
Rajni Devi are husband and wife and from their
wedlock, two children were born but the
petitioner has initially suppressed these facts. In
his letter dated 30.03.1988, addressed to the
Deputy Director of Prosecution, Agra Zone,
Agra, the petitioner has stated that his wife is
Rajendri Devi and no issue was born to her.
When this letter was confronted to the petitioner
by the inquiry officer, then he stated that under
some confusion he has given a wrong
application. Thus, while the petitioner has stated
on 30.03.1988 that he has no children, sufficient
documentary evidences came to light that
daughter - Preeti was born in the year 1982 and
the son Sangeet Chaudhary was born in the year
1984 from the wedlock of the petitioner and
Smt. Rajni Devi. On the basis of the aforesaid
facts and other material and evidences on record,
the inquiry officer concluded that the petitioner's
first wife is Rajendri Devi daughter of Amrit
Singh, resident of Meerpurkalan, P.S. Babugarh,
Post Ghunghral, Hapur, Ghaziabad and his
second wife is Smt. Rajni Devi daughter of
Chhatar Singh, resident of Hanuman Teela, Post
Nayaganj, Khurja, District Buland Shahar and
the two children have born from the wedlock of
the petitioner and the aforesaid Smt. Rajni Devi.
The findings recorded by the Tribunal in
paragraphs 14 to 25 of the impugned order are
based on evidences and relevant materials on
record which go to show that the petitioner has
contracted second marriage with Smt. Rajni
Devi while his first wife Smt. Rajendri Devi is
alive. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, it cannot be said that there was
absolutely no evidence before the inquiry officer
or the Tribunal to hold that the petitioner has
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contracted second marriage with Smt. Rajni
Devi.

17. The judgment in the case of Laxmi
Devi (supra), relied by learned counsel for the
petitioner is clearly distinguishable on the facts
of the present case. That apart, the aforesaid
judgment was rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a criminal appeal arising from a
criminal case under Section 494, I.P.C. The
judgment of learned single Judge of this court in
the case of Aneeta Yadav (supra), is also of no
help to the petitioner. In the said case,
anonymous complaint was made that Aneeta
Yadav had solemnized marriage with Sri Brijesh
Kumar Yadav who was already married with one
Smt. Kusum Devi and has four children. Thus,
Aneeta Yadav had not contracted the second
marriage but it was her husband who contracted
the second marriage and she had no knowledge
about the first marriage of her husband.
Therefore, it was held that no punishment could
be awarded to Aneeta Yadav in terms of Rule 29
of the Rules, 1956. Thus, the facts of the case of
Aneeta Yadav (supra) are entirely different
from the facts of the present case. The other
judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of
Gore Lal Verma (supra) relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is also of no help to the
petitioner inasmuch in the case of Gore Lal
Verma the dismissal order was passed solely on
account
of
having
maintained
live-in
relationship outside the marriage. It is not the
case of the petitioner herein.

18. At this juncture, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Rule
29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct
Rules, 1956 as under:

"Bigamous marriages- (1) No government
servant who has a wife living shall contract
another marriage without first obtaining the
permission of the government, notwithstanding
that such subsequent marriage is permissible
under the personal law for the time being
applicable to him.

(2) No female government servant shall
marry any person who has a wife living without
first
obtaining
the
permission
of
the
government."

19. The aforesaid provisions of Rule 29
was considered by a coordinate bench of this
court in Special Appeal No.570 of 2012 (Pawan
Kumar Misra vs. State of U.P. thru its Principal
Secretary Home, Government of U.P. and
others), decided on 02.05.2014 and it was held
as under:

"9. A plain reading of Rule 29 reveals that
a government servant cannot marry again
without permission of the state government.
The legislature to their wisdom has used the
word "notwithstanding" which means, even if
the marriage is permissible under personal law
for the time being applicable to a government
servant, such government servant cannot be
allowed to marry again without permission of
the state government.

14. We are of the view that the appellantpetitioner cannot take assistance of the
provisions contained in Hindu Marriage Act or
alike personal law being a government servant.
The 1956 Rules has got statutory force and also
got overriding effect over the provisions
contained in the statute dealing with personal
law.

17. In the case in hand, the appellantpetitioner had committed an offence of bigamy
after enjoying 11 years of matrimonial life. Once
the 1956 Rules provides that second marriage
by a government servant during the lifetime of
first wife is an offence, and it amounts to
misconduct, then it is not open for the court to
take a different view than what has been
considered by the disciplinary authority.

22. Any liberty given by the courts or
interference with such matters, may result with
ill consequence in due course of time or may
11 All. Manbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1015
break the discipline in police force. It is not a
case where misconduct has been committed by
not an ordinary government servant. Being a
member of disciplined police force, it is always
expected that such person shall be abide law
and in case, a member of the police or Armed
forces is permitted to break the law and abuse
the powers conferred by the statutes, it shall
send a wrong message to the society."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

20. In the case of Javed vs. State of
Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has dealt with the question of second
marriage and affirmed the judgment of this court
in Ram Prasad Seth vs. State of U.P., AIR
1957 All. 411 and Badruddin vs. Aisha
Begum, 1957 All.LJ 300 in which it was held
by this court that the act of performing a second
marriage during the life-time of one's wife
cannot be regarded as an integral part of Hindu
religion nor could it be regarded as practising or
professing or propagating Hindu religion and
even if bigamy be regarded as an integral part of
Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P. Government
Servants'
Conduct
Rules,
1956
requiring
permission
of
the
Government
before
contracting such marriage must be held to come
under the protection of Article 25(2)(b) of the
Constitution.

21. In the case of Kursheed Ahmad Khan
vs. State of U.P., (2015) 8 SCC 439, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the provisions of Rule
29 of the aforesaid Rules, 1956, to be valid and
further held that performance of second
marriage during currency of the first marriage
resulting in punishment of removal from service
cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate
to the charge on established judicial parameters
(see para 11 of the judgment).

22. Similar view has been taken by a
learned single Judge in his judgment dated
18.05.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.27190 of 1997 (Veerpal Singh vs. Senior
Superintendent of Police, Agra, and others).

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted that there may be misconduct on
the part of the petitioner but it does not amount
to grave misconduct so as to attract Rule 29 of
the Rules, 1956 read with Article 351A of the
Civil Services Regulation. The submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no
substance inasmuch as the petitioner has
misrepresented before the authorities and made
every effort to mislead them as if he has not
contracted the second marriage. The evidences
on record proved that according to own
admission of the petitioner, Smt. Rajni Devi is
his wife and proved to be his second wife. The
conduct of the petitioner is in breach of the U.P.
government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 and
unbecoming of a government servant. That
apart, the conduct of the petitioner is a grossmisconduct attracting the provisions of Rule 29
of Rules, 1956. In the case of Khursheed Ahmad
Khan (supra), on contracting second marriage
during lifetime of the first wife and on that
account, the punishment of removal from
service, was held to be valid. Therefore, we have
no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the
petitioner was a gross-misconduct and the
provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956 read
with Article 351A of the Civil Services
Regulations were rightly invoked.

24. The issue can also be analysed from
another angle that in case the logic and the
proposition so advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner is taken on its face value, it may
create havoc and undesired results inasmuch as
it will tantamount to create a situation wherein
there would be violence to the statutory
provisions of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government
Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 29 was
consciously
enacted
stipulating
that
no
government servant, who has a wife living shall
contract another marriage without obtaining the
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission of the government notwithstanding
that such subsequent marriage is permissible
under the personal law for the time being
applicable to him. Once Rule 29 is clear and
applicable to the petitioner being government
servant, he has no option but to face
consequences on breach of it.

25. The findings recorded by the Tribunal
in the impugned order are findings of fact based
on consideration of relevant evidences and
materials on record. The scope of interference
with the order of the Tribunal by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
exercising
extra-ordinary,
equitable
and
discretionary jurisdiction, has its own limits. The
scope of judicial review is extended only when
there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding
is such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached on the basis of the material available.
Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal
shows that the Tribunal has passed the order on
the basis of relevant material and evidences
available on record establishing that the
petitioner has contracted the second marriage in
breach of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956.

26. For all the reasons afore-stated, we do
not find any good reason to interfere with the
impugned order of the Tribunal. Consequently,
the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1016
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 14072 of 2021

Ganga Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Dinesh Rai, Sri Shishir Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Seniority
-
Promotion/Appointment - Constitution of India
- Article 14 - The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Revenue Executive (Naib Tehsildar) Service
Rules, 2003 - Rule 16 - Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Revenue
Inspector) Service Rules, 2014 - Rule 5 - The
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Naib
Tehsildar)
Service
Rules,
2003
as
amended by the Second Amendment Rules,
2014
-
Rule
5(2)(b)
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Rajasva
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2014 - Uttar Pradesh
Assistant Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanungo)
Service
Rules,
1958
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Revenue
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2017.

From bare reading of the Revenue Inspector Service
Rules and Naib Tehsildar Service Rules, it emerges
that originally as per Naib Tehsildar Rules 2003, 9%
promotion to the post Naib Tehsildar through the
Commission
was
to
be
made
from
amongst
substantially appointed Registrars Kanungos who
have completed 5 years service as such on the first
day of the year of recruitment provided that if
sufficient number of eligible or suitable registrar
Kanungo are not available for promotion, the post
may be filled by promotion under sub clause (a) i.e.
from
amongst
substantially
appointed
Revenue
Inspectors. (Para 13)

Since the post of Registrar Kanungo, Assistant
Registrar Kanungo and Land Record Clerks were
merged and amalgamated in the equal pay scale on
the
post
of
Revenue
Inspector
as
per
recommendation of the pay Commission 2008 and the
decision of the State Government dated 22.11.2011
as mentioned in the GO dated 18.04.2012, as such
there arose some confusion as to the post of
Registrar
Kanungo
etc.
who
were
given
the
designation of Revenue Inspector. Therefore, to
streamline the things and to preserve the
benefit of promotion for the aforesaid cadre of
Registrar Kanungo etc., a new clause (b) in
sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Naib Tehsildar