High Court: Bigamy by Government Servant is Misconduct (Read the Judgment)

A retired railway employee had not seen his wife for 7 years, assuming her to be dead, committed an act of bigamy, since he, has been found guilty of misconduct, as per service rules, by the Karnataka High Court & held liable for 50% reduction in pension amount. However, considering he has retired & solely dependent on pension amount, the Court reduced the punishment from 5 years to 3 years, period already undergone by him.

The division bench modified the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The tribunal had in October 2018, set aside the punishment imposed by Railways. Authority had after carrying out an enquiry imposed a punishment of reduction in pension benefits by 50 percent for five years, under the Railway (Services) Pension rules, for misconduct.

Railways challenged the Tribunal order in the High Court stating that "Tribunal has made a discussion to the extent that the respondent has committed an act of bigamy & when things are not disputed even by the respondent himself, setting aside the punishment order is contrary to principles of law."

Employee opposed the appeal by saying "As the first wife has eloped, respondent has waited for seven years & presumed that she had died, thereafter entered into a second marriage. There is no error committed by the tribunal." He also pleaded that he has retired & is surviving on pension & punishment would affect his livelihood.

The Bench of Justices L Narayana Swamy & R Devdas observed,

"There is no scope for presumption that wife would be dead, in case if she is not seen for about seven years. For the purpose of the said presumption law provides that the husband has to approach the civil court seeking declaration that his wife is dead. Instead of approaching the civil court & obtaining decree, respondent has presumed that she must have died & had contracted second marriage, which on the face of it is misconduct. Under these circumstances, the order of the tribunal is to be set aside since the reason assigned is contrary to law & fact."

With respect to reduction in punishment bench stated,

"Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interference with the enquiry report & punishment is not for the courts. But in the facts & circumstances of the case that the respondent has retired from service & he is surviving only on pension, if it is deprived, it is nothing but deprival of livelihood of a person. If punishment would have been imposed upon respondent during the period of his service, that would have been a different thing. Under the circumstance, though we confirm the finding of the enquiry officer & the order of punishment, but the only interference to be is with regard to the reduction of period of five years to three years."

Read the Judgement: