Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
T. VENKATRAMANAPPA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/1996
BENCH:
M.M. PUNCHHI, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This is an appeal against the order of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal [the Tribunal] at Bangalore
whereunder the respondent seemingly 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 benefits. It appears from the
record that the respondent, a Police Constable, 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 hand, a departmental enquiry was instituted
against the respondent for which, priorly, he was suspended.
He, in turn, approached the 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 suspensions
lifted.
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
likelihood of the view of the Magistrate being reversed.
Now, it transpires that the Court of the Additional Sessions
Judge concerned wide order dated 11.9.1990, has affirmed the
view of the Trial Magistrate with the result that the
respondent remains discharged. This apparently is on the
basis that strict proof of solemnisation of the second
marriage must be proved before conviction can be recorded
for such offence. There is a string of judgments of this
Court whereunder strict proof of solemnisation of the second
marriage, with due observance of 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 mean that the State was in any way debarred form
invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which
forbids a Government servant to marry a second time without
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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. We therefore
explain away the orders of the Tribunal to the afore extent
that Rule 28 can be invoked, but would certainly maintain
the orders of revocation of suspension since in the presence
of the orders of discharge in favour of the respondent, his
continued suspension during the enquiry was totally
unwarranted. Let the enquiry be held.
There is thus partial success for both the parties. The
appeal stands ordered with these observations and
directions.