Sitaram & Ors. vs State of M.P.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2008 passed by the respondent No.4, Executive Engineer (Testing), M.P. Power Transmission Company Ltd., Badwah, District Khandwa whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of his contracting two marriages.

In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims himself to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe community and according to the customs of his community, two marriages are permissible and can be performed. According to the petitioner his two marriages took place prior to his appointment and even in his declaration prior to entering into service he had categorically declared that he has two wives and as such he has not concealed any fact from the authority.

The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet vide Annexure P/2 dated 6.4.2007 wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner are as under :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

In a subsequent show cause notice dated 13.3.2008, in addition to the above charges, the petitioner was also directed to show cause as to why he did not furnish the information of his contracting two marriages prior to coming into the service.

It is alleged that the petitioner''s conduct is against the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1965'').

A reply was submitted by the petitioner clearly specifying that both his marriages had already taken place prior to his coming into service, hence there is no question of any permission for second marriage and since he belongs to a scheduled tribe (Korku) as per their customs two marriages are permissible.

After considering the reply filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 24.6.2008 the petitioner''s services have been terminated holding that he has not disclosed the factum of his two marriages prior to coming into service wherein it is held that since the petitioner has violated the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also the provisions of the Rules of 1965, his services are liable to be

terminated and the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found to be correct.

In return, the respondents have supported the impugned order and it is submitted that as per rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1961'') the petitioner has not disclosed the fact of his two marriages prior to coming into service and the respondents were unaware of his two marriages till 2006 and it is only when the petitioner submitted his revised nomination form on 16.10.2006, they came to know about his earlier two marriages.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Rule 6 (1) of the Rules of 1961 provides as under :- "6. Disqualification. - (1) No male candidate who has more than one wife living and no female candidate who has married a person having already a wife living shall be eligible for appointment to any service or post: Provided that the Government may, if satisfied that there are special grounds for doing so, exempt any such candidate from the operation of this rule."

The aforesaid rule clearly provides that the exemption from this Rule would be available only if the Government is satisfied that there are special grounds for doing the same.

In the case of the petitioner, both of his marriages took place prior to his appointment. In the absence of any order passed by the Government exempting petitioner from the rigor of this Rule, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the fact that his second marriage

has taken place prior to his appointment and contend that the aforesaid rule is not applicable in his case.

I am afraid that the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kailashvan Goswami Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (3) MPHT 531 and in the case of Natthulal Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2011 (2) MPHT 502 are of no avail to the petitioner as both these judgments are confined to Rule 22 of the M.P. Government Servant''s Conduct Rules, 1959 (in short the ''Rules of 1959). Rule 22 of the Rules of 1959 is confined to bigamous marriages and provides that a government servant cannot contract another marriage without first obtaining the consent of the State Government whereas in the present petition the matter is confined to Rule 6 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 which prohibits the employment of a person if he has contracted second marriage.

In the circumstances, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.