Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2437 (ALL)

SANDHYA PANDEY v. SHARVAN KUMAR PANDEY

2010-08-11

A.P.SAHI, F.I.REBELLO

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred by Smt. Sandhya Pandey claiming herself to be the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent-Sharvan Kumar Pandey, a Sub-Inspector of Police, against whom the police department initiated disciplinary proceedings and dismissed him from service on account of having contracted a plural marriage with the appellant during service in violation of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. 2. The respondent-Shravan Kumar Pandey filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70379 of 2009 in which the appellant moved an impleadment application dated 12.3.2010 which was neither allowed nor rejected and the writ petition filed by the respondent-Sharvan Kumar Pandey has been allowed setting aside the order of dismissal on the ground that only a minor penalty could have been imposed. In view of the above the appellant was formally before the writ court under Chapter 22 Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The appeal is therefore permitted to be presented on her behalf to which the respondents have no objection and the matter is being proceeded with to be disposed of finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The appellant who claims herself to be the second wife alleged that the respondent misrepresented facts and developed intimate relations with the appellant as if the respondent had lost his first wife Smt. Urmila Pandey. The appellant got married to the respondent No. 1 under this impression in the year 2008. The appellant accepted this as she was also a widower as her former husband had died in the year 1996. The appellant later on discovered about the first subsisting marriage of the respondent No. 1 and three children being born out of the wedlock. A complaint was filed by the first wife in 2009. Consequently, an inquiry was conducted and the respondent was dismissed from service on 30.11.2009. 4. The respondent-petitioner in his writ petition has admitted his earlier marriage with Smt. Urmila Pandey and they have three sons out of the first wedlock. The respondent No. 1 faced the inquiry and the first wife Smt. Urmila Devi deposed in the inquiry withdrawing her complaint on the ground that it was a mere suspicion on her part. The appellant also deposed before the enquiry to establish her alleged marriage with the respondent. 5. The respondent No. 1 faced the inquiry and the first wife Smt. Urmila Devi deposed in the inquiry withdrawing her complaint on the ground that it was a mere suspicion on her part. The appellant also deposed before the enquiry to establish her alleged marriage with the respondent. 5. In the aforesaid background, the appellant has come up in appeal alleging that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by allowing the writ petition without hearing the appellant whose fate is directly involved in the matter. 6. We had heard learned counsel for the parties advancing their legal submissions and the following order was passed on 9.8.2010 : “Judgment reserved. Respondent No. 1 is directed to file an undertaking as agreed in Court. Place this matter on Wednesday next at 11.00 a.m.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 had agreed for resolving the dispute and in pursuance thereof an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1. 8. Paragraph 5 of the said affidavit is extracted below: “5. That, in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 9.8.2010, the deponent undertakes: (a) to give one fifth amount of the pay (after deduction) received by him under 6th Pay Commission. (b) To give one fifth of the arrears of salary as if the same is being paid by the department for the period from the dismissal upto the reinstatement in service. (c) To give one fifth amount of the pension and post retiral benefit.” 9. A copy of the said affidavit was served on the learned counsel for the appellant, who submitted that on instructions received the appellant has no objection to the appeal being disposed of in terms of the said undertaking given by the respondent No. 1. 10. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has also stated that he has no objection in case the appeal is disposed of in the said terms leaving it open to the authorities to impose any lesser punishment as directed by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is to be noted that the State has not filed any appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. 12. 11. It is to be noted that the State has not filed any appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with a further modification in the judgment dated 2.7.2010 of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellant shall be entitled to 1/5th of the total emoluments received by the respondent No. 1 during his service and even after retirement including arrears, if any. Accordingly, such amount to the tune of 1/5th of the total emoluments shall be segregated by the authorities at source itself and the payments shall be made to the appellant till such time as the appellant is alive or she re-marries whichever is earlier. The respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to 4/5th of the amount only as undertaken before this Court in terms of the affidavit referred to hereinabove. 13. The aforesaid settlement will not be construed to be any pronouncement on the marital status of the parties and is limited to the dispute in relation to the services of the respondent No. 1 as a police official in the State services. 14. The authorities shall be at liberty to proceed to award any lesser punishment as directed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the judgment impugned. 15. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. ————