Partly allowed

J.Venkateswarlu v. The Commandant

Telangana HC7 Jun 2013WP/18869/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified the petitioner's removal from service for bigamy and misconduct to stoppage of four increments, citing delay and prior settlement with the first wife, while denying back wages.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside; punishment modified to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect; no back wages or monetary benefits; deemed service for pension calculation only.

J.Venkateswarlu Vs The Commandant — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18869 of 2000

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging proceedings No.V-11014/34/2K/L&R (SZ), dated 31-07-2000, passed by 2^nd respondent, confirming proceedings No.V-15014/Maj10/JV/PR/VPT/ 99/2414, dated 31-03-2000, passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶6

The petitioner joined in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘CISF’) on 03-08-1983. According to the petitioner, he was given cash awards for 15 times for his best performance. This fact is not in dispute.

¶7

The petitioner married one Venkata Lakshmi in 1983. According to the petitioner, said Venkata Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as his ‘first wife’) was suffering with heart and kidney problems. They had no issues. They adopted a child in 1994. The petitioner’s elder sister’s daughter, by name, Shiva Parvathi was residing with the petitioner and used to assist in cooking and other household work. The petitioner married said Shiva Parvathi on 09-05-1999 and they both were residing in Government Quarters allotted to the petitioner.

¶8

The first wife of the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S No.265 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Baptla. The petitioner and his first wife entered into a compromise and the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on 21-09-1999. As seen from the award of the Lok Adalat Bench, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month and 20% of the dearness allowance and other allowances received from time to time from the employer, and also 20% of the GPF amount whenever he withdraws, and 20% of the retirement benefits and other emoluments to his first wife and his daughter. He has also agreed to deposit half of the sale proceedings of the site measuring 200 square

¶9

yards in Plot No.212 in Survey No.134/2 of Bhadurupalli Village of Range Reddy District, in the name of their minor daughter in fixed deposit whenever the plot is sold. The first wife of the petitioner also agreed to withdraw the complaint given by her against the petitioner to the employer, and the withdrawal of the complaint is a condition precedent for payment of maintenance amount. It is also the case of the petitioner that he gave a demand draft for Rs.1,00,000/- on 09-061999 drawn on State Bank of India, Bapatla, and that his first wife received and encashed the D.D. It appears that the first wife has not withdrawn the complaint lodged against the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the departmental enquiry proceeded against the petitioner. The following Articles of Charges were framed against him:

¶10

“Charge of Article – I:

¶11

That the said CISF No.834120022 Constable J. Venkateswarlu of ‘HQ’ Coy. CISF Unit VPT Visakhpatnam has committed an act of gross misconduct and unbecoming act deliberately in violation to Rule –21 and 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in that he got married with Smt. Sivaparvathi during May’99 while his spouse Smt. J. Venkatalakshmi is living without obtaining divorce from the Court of Law. Hence, the charge. Charge of Article – II:

¶12

That the said CISF No.834120022 Constable J. Venkateswarlu of ‘HQ’ Coy CISF Unit VPT Visakhapatnam kept Smt. Sivaparvathi (Second wife) in the Govt. Quarter No.TI/1442/54 allotted to him located at CISF New Complex, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam, with out any intimation / permission of the competent authority. Thus, he suppressed the fact and kept the department in dark. By doing so he has exhibited an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline in violation to Rule 3(i) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is unbecoming on his part being a disciplined member of the Armed Force of the Union. Hence, this charge. Charge of Article – III:

¶13

That the said CISF No.834120022 Constable J. Venakteswarlu of ‘HQ’ Coy CISF Unit VPT Visakhapatnam has committed an act of gross misconduct and unbecoming act deliberately in that he had submitted a false birth certificate dated 23-12-1997 issued by Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, mentioning that his first wife Smt.J. Venkatalakshmi delivered a female baby on 06-12-1993 at Srinivasanagar irrespective of the fact that the female child was adopted by them. Hence, this charge.”

¶14

The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 31-01-2000 holding

¶15

that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The first wife of the petitioner was examined as PW-1 during the enquiry. The petitioner’s case is that only to satisfy his first wife, he obtained the birth certificate that their adopted daughter is their natural daughter. The fact that he was residing with his second wife in the Government Quarter is also not in dispute. Similarly, production of birth certificate, dated 23-12-1997, issued by the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, mentioning that his first wife Smt. Venkatalakshmi gave birth to a female baby, is also not in dispute. It is also submitted that the first wife of the petitioner died on 19-09-2002. It is also stated that the petitioner has been taking care of his adopted daughter Sireesha. Unfortunately, the petitioner who got cash awards for 15 times for his best performance was ultimately removed from service.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Syed Azad v. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection force, SCR, Secunderabad^[1] . In that case, the petitioner was working as RPF Constable. In the similar circumstances, this Court allowed the writ petition. However, punishment was modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

¶17

4. It appears that the circumstances and facts have to be considered. It is an admitted fact that there was settlement between the petitioner and his first wife before the Lok Adalat. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of D.D. and that the first wife of the petitioner had withdrawn the same. The fact remains that the petitioner married his first wife in 1983 and that they had no children and that they adopted a baby in 1994. The allegation against the petitioner is that he married second wife on 09-05-1999. It appears that the petitioner and his first wife lived together from 1983 to 1997

¶18

and there were no disputes between them. It is also the case of the petitioner that his first wife was suffering with illness. All these facts have to be taken into consideration.

¶19

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of removal from service appears to be too harsh. Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment. But in view of long delay, the matter can be disposed of here itself. In the circumstances, the punishment is modified to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any backwages or any other monetary benefits from the date of his removal till the date of reinstatement. He shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of calculating pensionery benefits.

¶20

6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed in part and the impugned proceedings are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶21

B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶22

June 07, 2013. KTL

¶23

[1] 2006 – ALT – 2 - 112

J.Venkateswarlu v. The Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Venkateswarlu v. The Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalle Naga Raja Giri Prasad , Giri Prasad Sharma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pyata Narayana, Vs Late Omar Ali Khan (died)

Sri Venkateswara Industrial Traning Centre, Vs The Director

M.v.Ujjwala Rani, Vs Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati

Syed Mohammad Nasarullah Basha Khadri Cu Vs Sued Sha Md.Kamlullah Basha Kahdri .

Hindustan Steel Construction Ltd., Employee Union affiliated Vs The Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.