9.It is seen that the petitioner in his explanation submitted to the charge memo, has specifically taken a plea that only with the consent of his first wife and the continuous pressure mounted on him by his first wife to go for second marriage, the petitioner has contracted the second marriage. A clear reference also has been found in the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer that the letter given by the first wife shows that the first wife L.Susila Mary has given her consent for the second marriage of her husband as they failed to have any issue for 23 years. Sadly, there is no finding by the Enquiry Officer on the said letter which is the game changer to the controversy. It is not known on what count the said explanation offered by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer and the same error committed by the Disciplinary Authority could be seen from the order passed by the first respondent. Besides, findings given by this Court in Crl.A. (MD) No.184 of 2005 dated 20.04.2011 show that the petitioner had attempted to save the life of the deceased by pouring water on her and also attempted to put off the fire by holding her and rolling on the floor, resulting in the petitioner sustaining serious burn injuries. When this Court, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, has held that the petitioner had attempted to save the life of the deceased by pouring water and attempted to put off the fire by holding her and rolling on the floor and that the petitioner has admitted the deceased in both the Government Hospital at Pudukkottai and Trichy and thus allowed the Appeal, I do not find any good reason for imposing the punishment of termination from service. When the petitioner in his explanation given to the charge memo, has explained that only after 23 long years from the date of first marriage, has contracted the second marriage due to the persuasion of his first wife, Smt.L.Susila Mary who had given consent letter to go for second marriage, the mischievous charge memo levelled against the petitioner charging that he has contracted the second marriage, is wholly unacceptable and unjustified.
