Anup Deb, J--The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated March 1, 1995 passed in Civil Rule No.2717 of 1992 praying for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order. I 2. The brief facts are as follows : The appellant was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 24.7.76 and was promoted from time to time and at present is a Squadron Leader. On 28.12.79 the appellant married a lady named Kumari Sanjukta, a Punjabi girl by descent, and that fact was published in the Air Force record. On 17.6.90 a representation was filed by another girl Kumari Nisha Gupta, which is a available at Annexure B to the affidavit-in-opposition. That was sent to the Defence Ministry as well as to the Air Chief Marshall and in that representation it was stated that the petitioner married her on 7th May, 1982 by concealing his earlier marriage and as a result of this marriage with her a male child was born whose nick name is 'Bunty' and actual name 'Ronak'. It was also alleged in the letter that the appellant used to come to her parent's house and always promised her to take her to his place of posting, but that was never fulfilled by the petitioner. In the year 1986 Smti Nisha Gupta heard a rumour that her husband was already married earlier with one Kumari Sanjukta. The brother of Kumari Nisha Gupta came to Gorakhpur to verify it and found a lady in the quarter of the petitioner. When he made enquiries, she refused to disclose anything and shut the doors of the house. He could not ascertain any detail and returned home. This matter was brought to the notice of her husband and he promised her that the lady who was found in the quarter was not married to him. But she is a concubine and that he would very soon discontinue all connection with that lady and will take her to his quarter. In July, 1989, one Sqn Leader F. Deve came to Deoghar and met Smti Nisha Gupta in connection with some enquiries against this appellant and Smti Nisha Gupta narrated the facts to him also. The appellant came to Deoghar on 19.5.90 and stayed there for 4 days. In July, 1989, one Sqn Leader F. Deve came to Deoghar and met Smti Nisha Gupta in connection with some enquiries against this appellant and Smti Nisha Gupta narrated the facts to him also. The appellant came to Deoghar on 19.5.90 and stayed there for 4 days. During this visit he admitted that he was already married with Kumari Sanjukta who was working in the Army Hospital and has got two sons from her namely Sunit and Anil prior to his marriage with Nisha Gupta. It was also stated in this connection that her husband kept away gold ornaments valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- presented to her by the relation at the time of her marriage. Those ornaments were taken by the husband on the plea that he would keep them in the Bank's Locker. It was also stated in the application that the appellant further demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a price for getting divorce from Sanjukta, the earlier wife. Smti Nisha Gupta is a lady of 28 years and it is claimed that she comes from middle class family with socio-cultural background and she is not in a position to tolerate the fraud and deception played on her and thus application was filed before the authority. On receipt of this application, a notice was issued to the appellant asking him to give para wise reply to the above representation/letter submitted by his second wife Nisha Gupta. It is stated in para 10 of the writ petition that the appellant submitted explanation to the said letter and it is further stated that he denied all the allegations brought against him. But that explanation has not been filed along with writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner received another letter issued by the Air Commander whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by 17.9.90. This letter from the Air Commander contained the following documents - Marriage photographs, Marriage Invitation Card regarding marriage of the appellant with Ms. Nisha Gupta, statement of the priest, who solemnised the marriage and letters/correspondence of the appellant with Smti Nisha Gupta. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a reply, which is Annexure D to the writ petition. The petitioner did not deny the marriage with Smti Nisha Gupta, but he has built up story that the marriage was solemnised with Smti Nisha Gupta under duress. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a reply, which is Annexure D to the writ petition. The petitioner did not deny the marriage with Smti Nisha Gupta, but he has built up story that the marriage was solemnised with Smti Nisha Gupta under duress. That explanation was not accepted by the authority and vide Annexure E another show cause notice was issued which has been already quoted above. By Annexure F a reply was submitted by the appellant and thereafter the authority vide Annexure G issued another show cause notice. Annexure H is another reply to the show cause notice and thereafter the Annexure I was issued. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authority it is stated that the action is being taken against the appellant in accordance with the Rules. 3. The grounds of appeal in short are as under : (a) There was no valid reasons for framing the opinion that trial by Court Martial was inexpedient and that the Single Judge failed the aspect. (b) The Air Force Police made the enquiry behind the back of the appellant and opportunity to cross-examine the witness was not afforded and/or given to the appellant and such enquiry is violative of the principles of natural justice. (c) The provisions of para 790 of Court of Enquiry have not been complied with. 4. A show cause notice dated February 25,1991 under which the appellant were asked to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the service in terms of section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 16 of the Air Force Rules, 1969. The appellant submitted replies dated May 2, 1991 and additional replies on May 5,1991 but he did not file the reply dated May 2,1991 to the show cause notice. The show cause notice dated February 25, 1991 and the reply of the appellant were submitted to the Central Government. The appellant was directed to resign his Commission in accordance with Rule 16 (8), AF Rules, 1969. The respondent No.4 vide letter dated December 7, 1992 informed the appellant that he was required to submit his reply to the option being given to him by the Central Government to submit his resignation from the service. The appellant was directed to resign his Commission in accordance with Rule 16 (8), AF Rules, 1969. The respondent No.4 vide letter dated December 7, 1992 informed the appellant that he was required to submit his reply to the option being given to him by the Central Government to submit his resignation from the service. The appellant wrote a letter to the Defence Minister dated December 9,1992 and vide letter dated December 10,1992 the appellant had been given one more opportunity to indicate his decision regarding the option given by the Central Government to resign his Commission in terms of Rule 16 (8), AF Rules, 1969. It was made clear that if no reply was received, it would be presumed that the appellant were not willing to avail of the option given to the appellant by the Central Government. 5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the appellant advanced by Mr. Lahiri, Senior Advocate at length and he strenuously argued that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by the Air Force Police and as such the judgment and order are liable to be set aside. Mr. Lahiri, Senior Advocate further invited our attention to paragraph 790, Court of Inquiry Regulation in support of his argument that the appellant was not afforded and/or given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Air Force Police. Mr. Lahiri, Senior Advocate has also produced a newspaper to show that the second marriage was solemnised under duress. 6. We have considered the arguments of Mr. Lahiri very carefully and have gone through the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents and the affidavit-in-reply, memo of appeal and grounds thereof, five pages reply dated May 5,1991 being Annexure F to the writ petition written by the appellant in response to the show cause notice dated February 25, 1991 in which six decisions of the Apex Court had been cited, letter of the appellant dated December 9,1992 addressed to the Defence Minister but the appellant-petitioner nowhere (emphasis supplied) desired to cross-examine any witness whose evidence was recorded prior to the action taken under (a) of paragraph 790 of Court of Enquiry Regulation. The relevant portion of paragraph 790 reads as follows : “790. Action when Character etc. of the persons is affected. The relevant portion of paragraph 790 reads as follows : “790. Action when Character etc. of the persons is affected. - (a) As soon as it appears to the Court that the character of professional reputation of an officer or airman is affected by the evidence recorded, or that he is to blame, the affected person is to be so informed by the Court. All the evidence recorded upto that stage is to be read over to the affected person, and the Court is to explain to the person, if so required by him, how, in its opinion, it appears that the officer or airman's character or professional reputation is adversely affected, or how he appears to be to blame. (b) From the time an officer or airman is so informed, in accordance with sub-para (a) above he has the right to be present during all the ensuing proceedings, except when the Court is deliberating privately. The fact that an officer or airman to whom this para applies is or is not present will be recorded in the proceedings. (c) The affected officer or airman may, if he so desires, cross-examine any witness whose evidence was recorded prior to the action taken under sub-para (a) above. He may like wise, cross-examine subsequent witnesses, after their statements have been recorded. He may also request the Court to record the evidence of any witness in his defence. The officer or airman may make any statement in his defence ....” The appellant/petitioner did never express his desire to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Air Force Police as provided under sub-para (c) of paragraph 790 of the Court of Inquiry Regulations. The appellant/petitioner has waived his right to cross-examine as is further clear and evident from the facts, circumstances and materials on record. Waiver presupposes that the person to be bound is fully cognisant of his rights, and that being so, he neglects to enforce them, or chooses one benefit instead of another, either, but not both, of which he might claim. The Supreme Court in Manak Lal vs. Dr. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425 has laid down : “... Waiver presupposes that the person to be bound is fully cognisant of his rights, and that being so, he neglects to enforce them, or chooses one benefit instead of another, either, but not both, of which he might claim. The Supreme Court in Manak Lal vs. Dr. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425 has laid down : “... If in the present case, it appears that the appellant knew all the facts about the alleged disability of Shri Chhangani and was also aware that he could effectively request the learned Chief Justice to nominate some other member instead of Shri Chhangani and yet did not adopt that course, it may well be that he deliberately took a chance to obtain a report in his favour from the tribunal and when he came to know that the report had gone against him he thought better of his right and raised this point before the High Court for the first time. In otherwords, though the point of law raised by shri Dephtary against the competence of the tribunal be sound, it is still necessary for us to consider whether the appellant was precluded from raising this point before the High Court by waiver or acquiescence......We have, however, heard Shri Daphtary's case on the question of waiver and we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the appellant waived his objections deliberately and cannot now be allowed to raise it.” 7. The respondents filed an application on August 1, 1994 wherein they stated that due to pendency of the writ petition, the proceeding initiated by the department against the appellant petitioner was also pending finalisation for long time because of order of stay passed on December 16, 1992. 8. The Single Judge has incorporated relevant documents of this case in his judgment and order dated March 1,1995. The second marriage under threat and duress was not accepted by the respondents as well as by the Single Judge. 9. From the aforesaid discussions we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Lahiri, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner. 10. Needless to say, a person is liable to be prosecuted for bigamy. 11. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 12. In the result, the appeal fails. The respondents are at liberty to finalise the proceedings initiated against the appellant/petitioner. 13. Lahiri, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner. 10. Needless to say, a person is liable to be prosecuted for bigamy. 11. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 12. In the result, the appeal fails. The respondents are at liberty to finalise the proceedings initiated against the appellant/petitioner. 13. Looking into the entire facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.