Departmental inquiry cannot be judicially compelled absent material substantiating alleged bigamy.

The petitioner, employed as a Dog Trainer in the Police Department, alleged that on 5 July 2022 he found his wife and Respondent No. 3, a police constable, together in an objectionable position.

The petitioner thereafter complained to the police authorities, seeking departmental action against Respondent No. 3 for allegedly marrying or maintaining a relationship with his wife while already married.

The State submitted that a departmental inquiry had been initiated, but the petitioner failed to record his statement and misbehaved with the Inquiry Officer despite being summoned.

Respondent No. 3 contended that there was no material establishing bigamy and that the FIR registered against him under Sections 294, 34, 341 and 506 of the IPC had been quashed by the Division Bench in CRMP No. 652 of 2024 and a connected matter on 3 October 2024.

The petitioner sought a direction for initiation of departmental proceedings against Respondent No. 3 and compensation of ₹10 lakh for alleged infringement of his rights.

Whether the High Court should direct the police authorities to initiate or proceed with a departmental inquiry against Respondent No. 3 on the allegation that he committed bigamy by marrying or maintaining a relationship with the petitioner’s wife while already married?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to ₹10 lakh compensation in writ proceedings for the alleged conduct of Respondent No. 3?

The Court applied the principle that a writ direction for departmental action cannot ordinarily be issued merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, particularly where the record contains no material or clinching evidence supporting the alleged misconduct.

The Court noted that the allegation of bigamy could be pursued through a complaint before the competent Criminal Court under Section 494 of the IPC, which penalises marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse.

The Court further held that a claim for compensation arising from the alleged conduct of the respondents was misconceived in the writ petition and that the petitioner’s appropriate remedy, if otherwise maintainable, was to approach the competent Civil Court.

The Court also took note of the quashing of the FIR against Respondent No. 3 by the Division Bench.

The Court found that although the petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3 had married his wife while already married, no supporting material or clinching evidence was placed on record to establish the allegation.

Further, the petitioner had not cooperated with the departmental inquiry, having allegedly failed to record his statement and having misbehaved with the Inquiry Officer.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to compel the authorities to initiate or continue departmental proceedings.

It also observed that the allegation of bigamy was primarily actionable before the competent Criminal Court under Section 494 IPC, while the compensation claim required recourse to the competent Civil Court rather than writ jurisdiction.

The quashing of the FIR further weighed against granting the requested relief.

The claim for ₹10 lakh compensation was also rejected as misconceived in writ proceedings, with liberty, in substance, to pursue an appropriate civil remedy.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.