Dismissed

Smt .P. Vimala Devi, v. The General Manager

Telangana HC3 Jul 2013WA/34/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal filed by a wife of a service employee against his cohabitee and the employer regarding inaction on a complaint of bigamy. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that remedies for alleged misconduct must be sought from the employer's independent discretion and mandamus cannot be issued based on third-party perceptions.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and miscellaneous petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt .P. Vimala Devi, Vs The General Manager — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WA No.34 OF 2013

¶5

JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana )

¶6

Unsuccessful appellant-writ petitioner is in appeal. Writ petition was filed complaining inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in taking disciplinary action against the 4^th respondent.

¶7

2. Facts briefly are:- Petitioner alleges to be wife of K. Xavier having married him on 10-10-1984. It is alleged that petitioner was working as Junior Lecturer at Government Junior College, Kodumur, Kurnool District, and residing at Kurnool in her mother’s house, whereas her husband was residing at Rejimental Bazar, Secunderabad. The petitioner alleges that her husband developed illicit intimacy with the 4^th respondent. However, petitioner claims to have knowledge of the illicit intimacy between her husband and the 4^th respondent in April, 2011 and she obtained information from the office of the 4^th respondent under Right to Information Act and based on the

¶8

information she claims that the 4^th respondent has married her husband and they were blessed with a daughter. Petitioner, therefore, contends that since her marriage with K. Xavier is subsisting, 2^nd marriage said to have been contracted by the 4^th respondent with K. Xavier is violative of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Petitioner further states she made a complaint to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against 4^th respondent for contracting marriage with a person who has already a living wife. As no action was taken by the respondents 1 to 3 on the complaint made by her, she approached this Court by way of writ petition.

¶9

3. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it is ultimately for the employer to decide whether any misconduct is committed by the 4^th respondent and there is no need to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per the Rules, therefore the petitioner was not entitled to seek any direction and consequently by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition.

¶10

4. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant reiterates the submissions which were made before the learned single Judge that the action of the 4^th respondent in contracting 2^nd

¶11

marriage with a person who is already having a living wife is violative of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, for which respondents 1 to 3 are bound to take action.

¶12

5. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as all the allegations made by the petitioner against the 4^th respondent are on the basis of perceptions of the petitioner and it is for the employers-respondents 1 to 3 who are employers of the 4^th respondent to consider the same and take appropriate action if they are satisfied that the action of the 4^th respondent in allegedly contracting marriage with a person already having a living wife amounts to violation of the of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Mandamus cannot, therefore, be issued to the employer to take disciplinary action against an employee, particularly at the instance of a 3^rd party. Relief sought for in the writ petition is clearly misconceived. The writ petition was therefore rightly dismissed and there are no reasons to take a different view than the view taken by the learned single Judge. Writ Appeal is meritless and it is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

________________________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶14

______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 03-07-2013 NRG

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶16

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶18

WA No.34 OF 2013

¶19

NRG -06-2013

Smt .P. Vimala Devi, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt .P. Vimala Devi, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banne Buchappa s/o Late Banne Yadaiah, Vs The Union of India

Mandati Thirupathi Reddy Vs The Authorised Officer, Andhra Bank

B. Ramulamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Nageshwara Rao, Vs The Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Guntur Branch, 9/1

Movva Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and Inspector General of

Mohammed Amrullah (died per Lr) Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh