JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is a driver in the State Transport Department which has now been transformed into the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation which is impleaded as an additional respondent to this writ application. He was kept out of duty from 19-9-1963 by an order passed by the District Transport Officer which has been ratified by the Director of Transport by order dated 4-10-1963. The reason for such action is that the petitioner neglected to maintain, a person who claimed to be his wife. This person complained to the District Transport Officer that she was being so neglected. An enquiry seems to have been held and reliance was placed on a document where there is a statement that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The petitioner is an attestor to this document. A horoscope produced by the complainant, stated to be that of the petitioner, and which it was alleged came into her hands at the time of exchange of horoscope was also relied on. On these materials the District Transport Officer came to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. With this view the Director of Transport concurred and therefore a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to state why he should not be removed from service. Since no explanation was given by the petitioner he has been kept out of duty with effect from 19-9-1963. 2. The first point urged by counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that in a case of this nature where there is a dispute as to the status of a Government employee, mother he was the husband or not of a person claiming to be his wife the matter should be left to be decided by court. If this is not done, it is said that as a result of a sort of domestic enquiry legal status may get determined and at any rate on the basis of the conclusions reached at such enquiries, orders prejudicial to the Government employee may be passed. I am inclined to agree with this contention. If this is not done, it is said that as a result of a sort of domestic enquiry legal status may get determined and at any rate on the basis of the conclusions reached at such enquiries, orders prejudicial to the Government employee may be passed. I am inclined to agree with this contention. It is necessary for the purpose of enforcing discipline and even for maintaining the status of Government employees, that the Government should have full authority to deal with the Government employees in the matter of their conduct in the discharge of their duties as Government servant and perhaps in their conduct and discharge of duties arising from personal obligations, but there must be a limit I think, and that should not extend to the cases of determining important questions such as the relationship between a Government employee and an alleged wife. These must definitely be left for the determination of the courts of law. I am therefore of the view that no enquiry should have been conducted by the District Transport Officer or any conclusion reached on the complaint made before the District Transport Officer regarding the question whether the petitioner was the husband of the complainant. That person could have been advised to approach a court and if there was a decree passed, that decree, certainly could have been relied on for purposes of further action against the petitioner. 3. In the light of the above, I direct that the petitioner will be allowed to rejoin duty forthwith. The question as to what allowance should be paid to the petitioner during the period of his non employment will be determined by the appropriate authorities in accordance with the Rule applicable. 4. This writ application is ordered on the above terms. There will be no direction regarding costs.