Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 27 (CAL)

Ranjan Naik v. Union of India

2016-01-11

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who has had a colourful life, questions the propriety of his removal from service by the Railway Protection Force on the ground that he had more than one wife at several points of time. A previous order of punishment was set aside in the domestic appeal and the petitioner questioned the propriety of such appellate order in this court since the same left the petitioner exposed to disciplinary action from the stage immediately after the petitioner was furnished the inquiry report. The petitioner’s challenge to the appellate order by way of WP 3325(W) of 2012 was disposed of on August 14, 2012 by not interfering with the order of the appellate authority but by requiring the petitioner to be furnished the report of the original disciplinary authority who could not pass the order of removal from service since it was beyond his jurisdiction to do so. Following the order of this court of August 14, 2012, the petitioner was called upon, by a notice of November 26, 2012, to show cause why a punishment under Rule 153 of the Railways Protection Force Rules, 1987 would not be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner replied the following day. His letter claimed, “I do not like to show any fault of the enquiry officer …I simply beg you to save my service …”. The petitioner referred to his first wife being happily married to another and his third wife also having remarried after her separation from the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s reply of November 27, 2012 did not deal with the wife whose name the petitioner declared as his wife at the time of the petitioner joining his service and which wife the petitioner did not formally divorce prior to marrying the third wife who lodged the complaint against the petitioner upon discovering that he had been previously married. The petitioner questions the propriety of the disciplinary order and the punishment as affirmed in appeal on two grounds: that since the charge was only partially proved before the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority erred in finding the charge fully proved without furnishing a further opportunity to the petitioner; and, the report of the original disciplinary authority was not furnished to the petitioner despite the direction contained in this court’s order of August 14, 2012. It does not appear that in course of the order of punishment, any finding rendered by the inquiry officer in favour of the petitioner was reversed, whether partially or otherwise. The inquiry officer’s report was quite confusing and the inquiry officer observed that the second marriage of the petitioner was not proved and, as such, the charge levelled against the petitioner was partially established. Such observation had no nexus with the evidence before the inquiry officer. It may do well to notice the facts. The admitted position is that in 1991-92 the petitioner was married to Saroj Soni. It may have a child marriage and the evidence does now show that Saroj Soni stayed with the petitioner as wife for any length of time. In or about 1999, Saroj Soni obtained separation from her husband and subsequently married some other. At the time that the petitioner joined the Force, the petitioner declared the name of his wife to be Sushma Naik. Sushma Naik deposed before the inquiry officer that she got married to the petitioner on February 12, 1995 without the consent of her parents. The petitioner’s father deposed in course of the inqury that he was not aware of Sushma’s marriage with his son. However, the undeniable position is that the petitioner admitted his marriage with Sushma by declaring Sushma's name in the relevant form submitted by the petitioner before the RPF authorities. Upon the petitioner being appointed in the RPF and being sent to Kharagpur on training, he married Purnima Lanjewar on August 5, 1999. Purnima later discovered that the petitioner was married, but had suppressed such fact form her. Purnima walked out of the relationship and has subsequently remarried. It was on Purnima’s complaint that the departmental proceedings were initiated. The petitioner’s response of November 27, 2012 to the ultimate disciplinary authority completely glossed over the petitioner’s marriage with Sushma as was admitted by the petitioner in the declaration form submitted by the petitioner on his appointment in the RPF. Sushma’s statement that she married the petitioner in February, 1995 remains unrefuted. Thus, even if the petitioner’s child marriage with Saroj Soni was disregarded at the time that the petitioner lured Purnima into marrying the petitioner in May, 1999, the petitioner remained married to Sushma by his own admission without being formally separated or divorced from Sushma at the time of his marriage to Purnima. Thus, even if the petitioner’s child marriage with Saroj Soni was disregarded at the time that the petitioner lured Purnima into marrying the petitioner in May, 1999, the petitioner remained married to Sushma by his own admission without being formally separated or divorced from Sushma at the time of his marriage to Purnima. Such fact of the petitioner being married to Sushma at the time he married Purnima weighed with both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as would be evident from the discussion in the relevant orders. The inquiry officer casually observed that the petitioner’s marriage with Sushma may not have been proved, but such marriage was not required to be proved against the petitioner since the petitioner had admitted the same in his declaration to the RPF. It need not be repeated that admission is the best form of proof. As to the petitioner’s grievance that the order of the original disciplinary authority was not furnished to the petitioner despite the direction of this court issued on August 14, 2012, it does not appear that the petitioner has been prejudiced by such omission. In any event, the petitioner did not require the copy of the relevant order to be furnished as a pre-condition to the petitioner responding to the show-cause notice of November 26, 2012. The petitioner’s reply of November 27, 2012 did not raise the issue and the non-service of the order of the disciplinary authority is a red herring desperately pressed into service now. The order of punishment indicated the reasons for the relevant authority accepting that the charge had been established and awarding the punishment for proven bigamy. On facts, the appellate authority could not have found that the petitioner was not guilty of bigamy and since such a crime is not only the against the later wife who was lured into marriage by deception but against women and society, the punishment of the petitioner’s removal from service is eminently justified. WP 30395(W) of 2015 is dismissed for the petitioner being justifiably removed from service upon bigamy being proved by his admission. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.