Bigamy in violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules precludes ex-post facto marriage sanction and entitles treatment of absence as dies-non.

The applicant, a semi-skilled labourer at the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, married his first wife in 1987. After she allegedly deserted him in 1988, he filed for restitution of conjugal rights but subsequently withdrew the suit and married Sonu Bhattacharya in 1991 without obtaining a decree of divorce

He failed to disclose either marriage in official records, portraying himself as unmarried until a complaint by the second wife triggered disciplinary action in 1996

He was removed from service in 1998 for bigamy and concealment of facts

Following a previous Tribunal order (OA 1439/1998), the appellate authority reduced the penalty to "reduction in pay to the minimum for one year with cumulative effect" and directed the disciplinary authority to decide on the intervening period (1998–2004), which was later declared dies-non

The applicant’s request for ex-post facto permission for the second marriage was rejected by the Ministry of Defence

The applicant challenged these orders, seeking regularisation of the dies-non period and ex-post facto sanction for the marriage

1. Whether the rejection of ex-post facto permission for a second marriage was legally sustainable when the first marriage had not been dissolved by a decree of divorce

2. Whether the period from removal to reinstatement (21.08.1998 to 20.10.2004) could be treated as dies-non following the modification of punishment by the appellate authority

The court primarily applied Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibits a government servant from contracting a second marriage while having a spouse living, unless such marriage is permissible under personal law and "other grounds" exist

It also relied on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding the necessity of a formal divorce decree for remarriage

Regarding the regularisation of service, the Tribunal followed Fundamental Rule (FR) 54-A and the precedent of Battilal v. Union of India (2005), which establishes that if a punishment is merely reduced (rather than the employee being fully exonerated), the authority has the discretion to treat the intervening period as dies-non

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant remained legally married to his first wife because the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn without obtaining a divorce decree; thus, the second marriage constituted bigamy despite the first wife's alleged desertion

The court held that the Department was correct in denying ex-post facto permission as the marriage contravened statutory law (Hindu Marriage Act) and conduct rules

Applying the Battilal precedent, the Tribunal observed that FR 54-A applies only to unconditional reinstatements; since the applicant was found guilty of misconduct and given a modified (lesser) punishment rather than an exoneration, the Disciplinary Authority was within its rights to declare the period of absence as dies-non (maintaining continuity of service but denying back wages/increments)

It held that the denial of ex-post facto permission for the second marriage was sound as it was solemnized while a legal spouse was living

It further held that the order treating the intervening period as dies-non suffered from no infirmity because the applicant was not fully exonerated of the charges