JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Ram Siromani Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State. 2. The petitioner, an erstwhile Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) working in 41st battalion P.A.C., Ghaziabad has assailed the order of removal dated 13.1.2006 passed by the D.I.G., P.A.C., Meerut Range, Meerut and subsequent orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities. It was a case of a lady police official who was a widow unknowingly, remarried to her Junior colleague one constable (M) Ajeet Singh who was alleged to be already married to someone. In place of awarding a minor penalty as provided under Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The punishment was too harsh and it did not commensurate to the charges levelled against her. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 of the above said rule itself provides for awarding a minor penalty of withholding of an increment for three years if the government servant violates the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) and (2). The widow with two minor children could not get herself resettled in life, rather lost her job which was provided to her on compassionate ground after death of her first husband, a police personnel. 3. It emerges from the record that the petitioner’s husband had died while in government service and she was provided with compassionate appointment in the police department on a ministerial post. She was appointed on the post of constable (M) on 21.11.1992 as her husband had died in harness on 10.2.1992. Considering her satisfactory services, she was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police(M). While the petitioner was posted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police (M) in the office of SSP, Bulandshahr in the year 2003, she met Sri Ajeet Singh who was also posted there as constable (M). The petitioner being a widow was being provided emotional and other kind of support by Sri Ajeet Singh and intimate relationship developed between the two. As per learned counsel for the petitioner she did not know about the fact that Sri Ajeet Singh was already married or her wife was a serious patient of Tuberculosis. Both of them agreed to go for a Court marriage and accordingly the said union was registered by the Registrar (Hindu Marriage) on 11.3.2003. No formal marriage as per Hindu rites Satpadi etc. was performed. Both of them agreed to go for a Court marriage and accordingly the said union was registered by the Registrar (Hindu Marriage) on 11.3.2003. No formal marriage as per Hindu rites Satpadi etc. was performed. The petitioner already had two minor children, one daughter and a son at the time of her marriage. In fact she was in urgent need of emotional and other support to run and manage her family and the colleague Sri Ajeet Singh had always extended cooperation to her in sustaining herself in life and society. He was always available to her with a helping hand. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the petitioner that she did not know that Sri Ajeet Singh was already married and had a wife living in the village. Both of them started living together and she was transferred to 41st Battalian, PAC, Ghaziabad in the year 2004. 4. On some complaints, the Commandant, P.A.C. ordered a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner for violating the provisions contained in Section 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. A preliminary enquiry was conducted initially by one Dharam Singh, Assistant Commandant and subsequently Smt. Abha Singh, Deputy Commandant started a departmental enquiry by issuing a charge-sheet on 9.2.2005. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet dated 9.2.2005 and pleaded herself innocence of the charges. While the first departmental enquiry was still pending, a second preliminary enquiry was also ordered against the petitioner to be conducted by one Sri Santosh Kumar, an Assistant Commandant in 41st Bn, P.A.C. who submitted his report on 30.5.2005. This time Sri Ashok Kumar, Deputy Commandant had issued another charge memo on 6.8.2005. Both the charges dated 9.2.2005 and 6.8.2005 contained the same charges. The petitioner again submitted a reply to this charge-sheet on 17.8.2005 pleading innocence. 5. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted the report on 15.9.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Officer had recommended dismissal of the petitioner from the service. These findings were approved and a show cause notice was issued on 25.11.2005. The petitioner filed a writ petition No.76193 of 2005 in this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the proceedings and show cause notice. This Court had ordered for completing the enquiry within a stipulated period. The reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 22.12.2005. These findings were approved and a show cause notice was issued on 25.11.2005. The petitioner filed a writ petition No.76193 of 2005 in this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the proceedings and show cause notice. This Court had ordered for completing the enquiry within a stipulated period. The reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 22.12.2005. Several decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court were cited before the concerned officer. These cases supported the case of the petitioner. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, D.I.G. of Police, Meerut had passed the final order of penalty on 13.1.2006 dismissing the petitioner from service. 6. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s case was not covered by Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 as the charge-sheet did not indicate that the petitioner did not obtain the permission of the State Government before undergoing remarriage. A widow could remarry under law though offence of remarriage is punishable under Section 494, IPC. This is not applicable in the petitioner’s case as she was a widow at the time of her marriage. The petitioner had not violated any of the provisions contained in the said section. If Sri Ajeet Singh was already married, the petitioner’s marriage which was registered in the office of Registrar of Marriage on 11.3.2003 shall be treated to be null and void. The Court marriage solemnised on 11.3.2003 by issuing certificate by Registrar of Marriage has become null and void if Sri Ajeet Singh was treated to be already married. The marriage being null and void, no action should have been taken against the petitioner under Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 7. Sri Ram Shiromani Mishra has laid much emphasis that Sri Ajeet Singh had given in writing that he had not informed the petitioner Raj Bala Sharma regarding her earlier marriage. The petitioner being a widow and that too with two little children agreed to get married with Ajeet Singh to resettle herself in life. The petitioner’s alleged marriage with Sri Ajeet Singh did not in any manner interfere or obstruct her with her official duty which she had been performing with sincerity and dedication. The punishment awarded against the petitioner was quite harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against her. The petitioner’s alleged marriage with Sri Ajeet Singh did not in any manner interfere or obstruct her with her official duty which she had been performing with sincerity and dedication. The punishment awarded against the petitioner was quite harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against her. Even as per provisions contained in this rule, no major penalty can be awarded against the petitioner. Rule 29 is quoted below : "29(1) : No Govt. Servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without fresh obtaining the permission of the Govt. notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. (2) No female Govt. Servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining permission of the Govt. (3) A minor punishment to be imposed in contravention of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be withholding of increments for three years." 8. The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court reported in 1997 ALJ 1714, Paras Nath Pandey v. Asstt. Director (Admn), Directorate of Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow and others. In this case this Court has clearly laid down that in such case only minor penalty could be awarded against a government servant in violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Another judgment rendered on 20.12.2004 in W.P. No. 19034 of 1997, Gaya Deen v. Inspector General of Police (Railways), Allahabad and others has also been produced before the Court. 9. The petitioner’s appeal and revision were rejected without application of mind. The petitioner has been thrown out of employment which was provided to her by the government on compassionate ground after the death of her husband late Sri Santosh, a police personnel on 21.11.1992. She would suffer irreparable loss and injury. She has no other means of livelihood and has to maintain her two children and settle them in life. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner knowingly had remarried Sri Ajeet Singh who had a wife living at his native village. A statement has been made by Sub-Registrar/Registration Officer, Hindu Marriage, Ghaziabad that the marriage was registered on 11.3.2003 under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a formal certificate under Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Hindu Marriage Niyamawali, 1973 was issued to the couple. A statement has been made by Sub-Registrar/Registration Officer, Hindu Marriage, Ghaziabad that the marriage was registered on 11.3.2003 under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a formal certificate under Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Hindu Marriage Niyamawali, 1973 was issued to the couple. Since the marriage was solemnised and registered on 11.3.2003, there was clear violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has stopped taking family pension after this marriage and she has returned Rs. 7,239/- the amount of family pension to the Govt. Treasury. Thus, the factum of marriage was established. As far as the petitioner’s submission that she had no knowledge of earlier marriage of Ajeet Singh, it cannot be believed. She was senior to Sri Ajeet Singh and she must have made an enquiry before marrying Sri Ajeet Singh. As far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, the same was held in accordance with the relevant service rules. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was followed by a formal regular enquiry. A detailed charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. After obtaining and considering her reply a show cause notice was issued against her. Considering the gravity of the charges, the petitioner was rightly dismissed from the service. There was no illegality or infirmity in the decision making process in holding departmental enquiry. Adequate punishment has been awarded against the petitioner who had remarried constable Ajeet Singh. The competent authority had followed the provisions contained in Rule 29 of U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. Here is a case of a widow of a police personnel who was given compassionate appointment on the death of her husband in harness on 10.2.1992. At the time of the death of her husband, the petitioner had two minor children to maintain. She was given compassionate appointment on 21.11.1992 on the post of constable (M). It is evident from record that the petitioner was subsequently promoted on the higher post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (M). This shows that her work, conduct and performance in the services had remained satisfactory. It was natural for a young widow like the petitioner to get attracted to a colleague working in the same department. It is evident from record that the petitioner was subsequently promoted on the higher post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (M). This shows that her work, conduct and performance in the services had remained satisfactory. It was natural for a young widow like the petitioner to get attracted to a colleague working in the same department. Both were in the ministerial establishment working in the same office. The love is blind. It also appears from the record that Sri Ajeet Singh was supporting his senior colleague Smt. Raj Bala Sharma and her children in the time of need. It is borne out from the record that Sri Ajeet Singh was providing mental and other support to the petitioner and her children to carry on in life at a small city, i.e., Bulandshahr. In peculiar circumstance in which the widow police personnel was living, it was natural for her to be attracted to a supportive man. Like in garden a creeper (Lata, vallarre) needs a strong support to climb up and sustain itself, a woman also may need a support who could stand with her facing the life garden in hard times. Even a small stream needs support of its banks,strong hills rocks to proceed further in the process to transform itself into a big mighty river. 13. As far as petitioner’s statement is concerned, she has demonstrated that she had no knowledge about the first marriage of Sri Ajeet Singh. As far as the offence of remarriage (as per Section 494, IPC) is concerned, in the present case the petitioner Smt. Raj Bala Sharma had married after the death of her first husband. Section 494, I.P.C. deals with a person who had a husband or wife living. This charge cannot be fastened on Smt. Raj Bala Sharma, petitioner. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, no marriage between two Hindus could be solemnised if one of them has a husband or wife living. If such marriage is solemnised after the commencement of this Act it would be null and void. The provisions of Sections 494 and 495, IPC shall apply in such cases. If such marriage is solemnised after the commencement of this Act it would be null and void. The provisions of Sections 494 and 495, IPC shall apply in such cases. Applying this law, the marriage of the petitioner with Sri Ajeet Singh was null and void under law and no punishment could be awarded against her under Section 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. As per Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage may be held as void. The petitioner’s case cannot be dealt with under Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Sri Ajeet Singh had given in writing to the Enquiry Officer that he had not informed the petitioner regarding her earlier marriage. The petitioner appears to be innocent in the present case. 14. In Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, the main thrust has been given on the term “without obtaining prior permission of the government”. In this case the petitioner has not been charged for this misconduct. She has been charged only for remarriage and not for charge of not obtaining the permission of the government. Neither there was such accusation against the petitioner nor it was found proved. 15. This Court has read the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. It has been provided in these rules that whoever contravenes the provisions contained in Rule 29(1) and (2) shall be awarded with a minor penalty. In the present case, the awarding of punishment of dismissal is certainly against the letter and spirit of Rule 29 itself. The major penalty ought not to have been awarded against the petitioner applying the Rule 29(1), (2), (3) of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 16. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner has remained satisfactory. The petitioner’s alleged marriage with Sri Ajeet Singh did not in any manner interfere with or obstruct her official duties. She was promoted from the post of constable to S.I. (M) and was posted at Bulandshahar. There is nothing on the record to show that her work, conduct and performance was not up to the mark. The petitioner’s alleged marriage with Sri Ajeet Singh did not in any manner interfere with or obstruct her official duties. She was promoted from the post of constable to S.I. (M) and was posted at Bulandshahar. There is nothing on the record to show that her work, conduct and performance was not up to the mark. Even otherwise her living with Sri Ajeet Singh or having intimate relation could not be branded as an offence committed by her as it has come on record that she was not aware of earlier marriage of Sri Ajeet Singh and she being widow could have performed remarriage with a colleague or a man of her choice. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner as well as Sri Ajeet Singh both have been dismissed from service and none of them have any other means to sustain their families. Both of them are immensely suffering due to issuance of dismissal order. The education and upbringing of the children is also suffering. 18. This Court has also noted that as a result of dismissal from service, the petitioner, a widow has immensely suffered, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be hard for her to sustain herself and her two children in life. Her daughter is of marriageable age and both the children have to be settled in life. Considering the subject-matter of accusation, misconduct committed by the widow, it was not appropriate to throw her out of employment, dismiss her from services rendering her unfit for future employment. 19. This Court has also taken note of two decisions of this Court in which similar controversy has been set at rest. In 1997 All. L.J 1714 (supra), this Court has held that no major penalty could be awarded to a government servant on contravention of provisions contained in Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Only a minor penalty as indicated in the rules could have been imposed. The punishment of dismissal in the present case is not proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The misconduct which has been imputed to the petitioner is not in any manner affecting the discharge of her official duty. No such finding has been recorded by the competent authority in this regard. The punishment of dismissal in the present case is not proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The misconduct which has been imputed to the petitioner is not in any manner affecting the discharge of her official duty. No such finding has been recorded by the competent authority in this regard. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner appears to be harsh and it does not commensurate to the gravity of charge proved against her. The petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the above said decision of this Court as well as in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386 and other cases cited in the aforementioned judgment of this Court. 20. In view of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of impugned dismissal of the petitioner dated 13.1.2006 and the orders passed in the appeal and revision dated 19.3.2006 and 12.4.2007 respectively are quashed. Since the order of dismissal has been quashed by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within one month from the date of filing of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the authority concerned. It is further observed that it shall be open to the appropriate authority to award only other minor penalty against the petitioner as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 if the charges are proved. All the consequences shall follow. The petitioner shall be treated to have remained in service with all the consequential benefits of such service. No order as to cost. ———