LexTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus T. VENKATARAMANAPPA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. v. T. VENKATARAMANAPPA SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) Se1Vice Law: Kamataka Civil .Se1vice Rules : Rule 28-Govemment Se1vant contracti11g a second maniage while the first 011e wa~ subsisti11g-Suspe11ded from Se1vice-Climinal proceedings for bigamy-Discharged--Departmental proceedings-Quashed by the Tribu11al a11d suspe11sio11 lifted--011 appeal held, dep01tme11tal e11quiry be held since it is 11ot necess01y that a conviction for bigamy under S.494 is a pre-requisite A B c for the same-But since the order of discharge is i11 favour of the employee, D his continued suspeiision during the enquiry not wanwzted-lndian Penal Code, S.494. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12312 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.90 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in A. No .. 4928 of 1990. M. Veerappa for the Appellant. Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. E F This is an appeal against the order of the Karnataka Administrative G Tribunal (the Tribunal) at Bangalore whereunder the respondent seeming- ly was absolved from facing a departmental enquiry on the charge of having contracted a second marriage in the presence of the one subsisting with his acknowledged wife and, as a result of which, the orders of suspension passed against the respondent were lifted conferring consequential H 607 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A benefits. It appears from the record that the respondent, a Police Con- stable, faced prosecution at the instance of his wife, before the criminal court and was discharged for want of evidence of the_ 2nd marriage. On the other hand, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the respon- dent for which, priorly, he was suspended. He, in turn, approached the B Tribunal for the twin relief of (i) lifting the suspension order and (ii) to stop the enquiry on the ground that the criminal court had on 14.1.1988 discharged him of the offence of bigamy. These pleas found favour with the Tribunal and, resultantly, the departmental proceedings were quashed and the suspension lifted. c When this matter was brought to this Court, it was pleaded that the said order of the criminal court, dated 14.1.1988 had been subjected to revision and there was a likelihood of the view of ·the Magistrate being reversed. Now, it transpires that the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge concerned vide order dated 11.9.1990, has affirmed the view of the Trial D Magistrate with the result that the respondent remains discharged. This apparently is on the basis that strict proof of solemnisation of thf~ second marriage must be proved before conviction can be recorded for such offence. There is a st!ing of judgments of this Court whereunder' strict proof of solemnisation of the second marriage, with due observance of E rituals and ceremonies, has been insisted upon. The prosecution evidence in the criminal complaint may have fallen short. of those standards but that . does not meari th~.t the State was in any way debarred from invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which 'forbids a Government servant tci marry a second time without the permission of the Government. F But, h~re, the respondent being a B:indu," 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 dep~rtmental proc~edings against the respon- dent on the footing that such question of bigamy should normally not be taken up for decision in departmental enq~iries, as tlie decisions of com- G petent 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. We therefore explain away the orders of the Tribunal to the afore extent that Rule 28 H can be invoked, but would certainly maintain the orders of revocation of t- STATEv. T. VENKATARAMANAPPA 609 suspension since in the presence of the orders of discharge in favour of the A respondent, his continued suspension during the enquiry was totally unwar- ranted. Let the enquiry be held. There is thus partial success for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.