THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusT. VENKATARAMANAPPA

               THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.                                       A
                                        v.
                         T. VENKATARAMANAPPA

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

            [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)                                B

        Se1Vice Law:

        Kamataka Civil .Se1vice Rules :

        Rule 28-Govemment Se1vant contracti11g a second maniage while the            c
first 011e wa~ subsisti11g-Suspe11ded from Se1vice-Climinal proceedings for
bigamy-Discharged--Departmental proceedings-Quashed by the Tribu11al
a11d suspe11sio11 lifted--011 appeal held, dep01tme11tal e11quiry be held since it
 is 11ot necess01y that a conviction for bigamy under S.494 is a pre-requisite
for the same-But since the order of discharge is i11 favour of the employee,         D
his continued suspeiision during the enquiry not wanwzted-lndian Penal
 Code, S.494.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12312 of
1996.
                                                                                     E
    From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.90 of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in A. No .. 4928 of 1990.

        M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

        Mahabir Singh for the Respondents.                                           F

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.

      This is an appeal against the order of the Karnataka Administrative            G
Tribunal (the Tribunal) at Bangalore whereunder the respondent seeming-
ly 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                   H
                                    607
    608                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A benefits. It appears from the record that the respondent, a Police Con-
    stable, 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 other hand, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the respon-      t-
    dent for which, priorly, he was suspended. He, in turn, approached the
B   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 suspension lifted.

c        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 a likelihood of the view of ·the Magistrate being
  reversed. Now, it transpires that the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge
  concerned vide order dated 11.9.1990, has affirmed the view of the Trial
D Magistrate with the result that the respondent remains discharged. This
  apparently is on the basis that strict proof of solemnisation of thf~ second
  marriage must be proved before conviction can be recorded for such
  offence. There is a st!ing of judgments of this Court whereunder' strict
  proof of solemnisation of the second marriage, with due observance of
E 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 meari th~.t the State was in any way debarred from invoking Rule
  28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which 'forbids a Government
  servant tci marry a second time without the permission of the Government.
F But, h~re, the respondent being a B:indu," 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 dep~rtmental proc~edings against the respon-
  dent on the footing that such question of bigamy should normally not be
  taken up for decision in departmental enq~iries, as tlie decisions of com-
G petent 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
H can be invoked, but would certainly maintain the orders of revocation of
                   STATEv. T. VENKATARAMANAPPA                          609

suspension since in the presence of the orders of discharge in favour of the   A
respondent, his continued suspension during the enquiry was totally unwar-
ranted. Let the enquiry be held.

     There is thus partial success for both the parties. The appeal stands
ordered with these observations and directions.
                                                                               B
G.N.                                                   Appeal disposed of.