it2025_01037 — Applicant herein who was an Assistant Superintendent, Passport Office, Malappuram informally lived with one Smt. Pankajakumari who worked in the same office of the Applicant and two children were born to them. But both had separated due to some reason. The Applicant then married in the proper manner one Smt. Smitha and also got separated. The Applicant hence is guilty of misconduct first to unofficially marrying and later marrying the second lady without proper permission. Hence he was dismissed

IT Rules

Applicant herein who was an Assistant Superintendent, Passport Office, Malappuram informally lived with one Smt. Pankajakumari who worked in the same office of the Applicant and two children were born to them. But both had separated due to some reason. The Applicant then married in the proper manner one Smt. Smitha and also got separated. The Applicant hence is guilty of misconduct first to unofficially marrying and later marrying the second lady without proper permission. Hence he was dismissed. OA is hence dismissed as devoid of merit as his action proves that his behaviour is not worthy to keep him as a public servant — This chunk discusses an administrative case involving an Assistant Superintendent at the Passport Office, Malappuram who was dismissed due to misconduct related to his marriages. He had a long-term r... — Facts: Applicant joined as a casual Clerk at Calicut Passport Office. While working at Calicut, he entered into an agreement of marriage with one Smt. Pankajakumari who was also a casual Clerk in that office. The marriage was registered in a sub-registry. They had two children and lived together for seven years. But the marriage did not survive further due to marital discord and they got separated. Before separation, they were regularized as employees under the Respondent organization. Pankajakumari and Applicant got deleted as husband and wife from service record which was agreed to by the authorities. Applicant thereafter married another employee, Smt. Smitha under the provisions of Special Marriage Act without any objection from any one. Again due to marital difference, both got separated. The Applicant submits that there had been no valid marriage between him and Smt. Pankajakumari and their separation was with mutual agreement. He further submits that his marriage with Smt. Smitha was under Special Marriage Act. Department issued a charge-sheet for his marriage which the Applicant states is grievous victimization. Both the ex-wives of the Applicant deposed before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry. Despite filing a representation against the enquiry report, the Applicant was dismissed from service as per Order, dated 5-8-2016. In view of the above being aggrieved, the Applicant filed this OA to set aside his dismissal order and reinstate him into service with consequential benefits. Tribunal heard the case and examined the documents. The Applicant agreed to the fact that there is legal ambiguity inherent in the agreement of the Applicant who had entered into a marriage agreement with Smt. Pankajakumari which is enclosed as A-1. Both Applicant and Pankajakumari lived for seven years. The Applicant pleaded that he was fully aware that it was not a legal marriage but the fact that he applied for annulling the arrangement shows that he knew he had obligations under the same. His misconduct further compounded due to marrying Smt. Smitha and that Applicant chose to cancel the earlier “arrangement”. His behaviour due to the above sequence is less than desirable and unbecoming of a Government servant. Under Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules governing restriction regarding marriage, the provision under G.I., M.H.A. O.M. No. 25/35/60- Ests., dated the 9th December, 1960 is reproduced. The essential part of that provision is, “it is hereby clarified that even a marriage which is legally null and void by reason of there being a spouse at the time of marriage would disqualify that person concerned for appointment to Government service.” Even though the admissibility of the marriage agreements such as the present one, the Tribunal took into consideration the distinction between de facto and de jure in the set of circumstances before the Tribunal. Even though the applicant lived with Smt. Pankajakumari as his wife for several years and fathering two children, it is calumnious on his part then to turn around and enter into another marriage claiming that his marriage with Smt. Pankajakumari was not valid. Based on the facts of the case and appreciating records and submission before the Tribunal members, the administrative member was of the view that the Applicant was clearly guilty of misconduct. His behaviour brought disrepute to his office and Government in the eyes of the public. Hence the case was concluded that this is not a fit case for the Tribunal to interfere with the dismissal of the Applicant. Hence the OA is devoid of merit. Even though the judicial member had agreed with the Administrative member, the judicial member added that the Applicant is trying to escape the rigour of law by carefully venturing to get into a “contract” with the woman he has married so that the criminal law of the land will not visit him with the penal consequences.

IT Rules

Applicant herein who was an Assistant Superintendent, Passport Office, Malappuram informally lived with one Smt. Pankajakumari who worked in the same office of the Applicant and two children were born to them. But both had separated due to some reason. The Applicant then married in the proper manner one Smt. Smitha and also got separated. The Applicant hence is guilty of misconduct first to unofficially marrying and later marrying the second lady without proper permission. Hence he was dismissed. OA is hence dismissed as devoid of merit as his action proves that his behaviour is not worthy to keep him as a public servant — This chunk discusses an administrative case involving an Assistant Superintendent at the Passport Office, Malappuram who was dismissed due to misconduct related to his marriages. He had a long-term r... — Facts: Applicant joined as a casual Clerk at Calicut Passport Office. While working at Calicut, he entered into an agreement of marriage with one Smt. Pankajakumari who was also a casual Clerk in that office. The marriage was registered in a sub-registry. They had two children and lived together for seven years. But the marriage did not survive further due to marital discord and they got separated. Before separation, they were regularized as employees under the Respondent organization. Pankajakumari and Applicant got deleted as husband and wife from service record which was agreed to by the authorities. Applicant thereafter married another employee, Smt. Smitha under the provisions of Special Marriage Act without any objection from any one. Again due to marital difference, both got separated. The Applicant submits that there had been no valid marriage between him and Smt. Pankajakumari and their separation was with mutual agreement. He further submits that his marriage with Smt. Smitha was under Special Marriage Act. Department issued a charge-sheet for his marriage which the Applicant states is grievous victimization. Both the ex-wives of the Applicant deposed before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry. Despite filing a representation against the enquiry report, the Applicant was dismissed from service as per Order, dated 5-8-2016. In view of the above being aggrieved, the Applicant filed this OA to set aside his dismissal order and reinstate him into service with consequential benefits. Tribunal heard the case and examined the documents. The Applicant agreed to the fact that there is legal ambiguity inherent in the agreement of the Applicant who had entered into a marriage agreement with Smt. Pankajakumari which is enclosed as A-1. Both Applicant and Pankajakumari lived for seven years. The Applicant pleaded that he was fully aware that it was not a legal marriage but the fact that he applied for annulling the arrangement shows that he knew he had obligations under the same. His misconduct further compounded due to marrying Smt. Smitha and that Applicant chose to cancel the earlier “arrangement”. His behaviour due to the above sequence is less than desirable and unbecoming of a Government servant. Under Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules governing restriction regarding marriage, the provision under G.I., M.H.A. O.M. No. 25/35/60- Ests., dated the 9th December, 1960 is reproduced. The essential part of that provision is, “it is hereby clarified that even a marriage which is legally null and void by reason of there being a spouse at the time of marriage would disqualify that person concerned for appointment to Government service.” Even though the admissibility of the marriage agreements such as the present one, the Tribunal took into consideration the distinction between de facto and de jure in the set of circumstances before the Tribunal. Even though the applicant lived with Smt. Pankajakumari as his wife for several years and fathering two children, it is calumnious on his part then to turn around and enter into another marriage claiming that his marriage with Smt. Pankajakumari was not valid. Based on the facts of the case and appreciating records and submission before the Tribunal members, the administrative member was of the view that the Applicant was clearly guilty of misconduct. His behaviour brought disrepute to his office and Government in the eyes of the public. Hence the case was concluded that this is not a fit case for the Tribunal to interfere with the dismissal of the Applicant. Hence the OA is devoid of merit. Even though the judicial member had agreed with the Administrative member, the judicial member added that the Applicant is trying to escape the rigour of law by carefully venturing to get into a “contract” with the woman he has married so that the criminal law of the land will not visit him with the penal consequences.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text