Criminal acquittal does not bar departmental penalty for bigamy and falsification of service records.

The applicant, a Postman, married his first wife, Subbulakshmi, in 1998

Despite a separation in 2002 and a purported "customary" divorce via a village panchayat settlement in 2009, his formal petition for divorce was dismissed by a Sub Court in 2007

In 2011, the applicant contracted a second marriage/relationship with Ms. Allirani and subsequently nominated her as his "wife" in official service records (Form 3 and Form 8) in 2014, declaring he had only one living wife

Following a 2016 FIR filed by the first wife for bigamy and subsequent press coverage, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

The Inquiry Officer (IO) conducted an ex parte examination of witnesses after the applicant failed to claim the registered notice for the hearing

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by five stages for six years with cumulative effect

The applicant challenged this, citing a 2019 criminal acquittal and denial of cross-examination

1. Whether a customary divorce through a village panchayat is legally valid for a Hindu Government servant to contract a second marriage during the subsistence of the first

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally flawed due to the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses when the notice was returned "unclaimed"

3. Whether an acquittal in a criminal case for bigamy mandates the withdrawal of departmental punishment based on the same facts

The court primarily applied Sections 4, 5, and 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which establish that the Act overrides customs unless a valid custom is specifically pleaded and proven as an exception

It relied on Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibits bigamous marriages

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regarding the presumption of service by post

Key precedents included Mahendra Nath Yadav v. Sheela Devi, establishing that panchayat divorces are not recognized under the 1955 Act

Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM, Indian Oil Corp., which distinguished the "preponderance of probability" standard in departmental inquiries from the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in criminal trials

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s marriage was governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, which prohibits a second marriage while a spouse is living

The court rejected the "customary divorce" defense, noting the applicant failed to prove the four essential attributes of a valid custom (immemorial, reasonable, continuous, and certain)

The applicant's prior unsuccessful attempt to seek a judicial divorce proved he was aware the marriage had not been legally dissolved

Regarding the ex parte inquiry, the Tribunal held that since the notice was sent to the correct address and returned "unclaimed," service is deemed effective under the General Clauses Act; thus, the applicant could not claim a violation of natural justice

The Tribunal held that departmental proceedings and criminal trials have different objectives and standards of proof; therefore, the applicant’s acquittal (based on a lack of state witnesses) did not absolve him of the departmental charge proved via service records and his own admissions

It ruled that the applicant's second marriage was illegal under the Hindu Marriage Act and his declaration in service records was false

The Tribunal affirmed that procedural requirements were met and the penalty was not disproportionate

The final order confirmed the punishment of reduction of pay as issued by the Disciplinary Authority