Justice M Venugopal confirmed the order of the Secretary, Transport Department dated May 24, 2011 in this regard.
Dismissing the petition filed by the employee M Vengan challenging the order of compulsory retirement, Justice M Venugopal said when the first marriage subsists, a second marriage is not permitted under Law of the Land as per Hindu Marriages Act.
Based on a complaint from first wife, a charge memo was served on Vengan and later the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed which was confirmed by the Transport Secretary.
In his petition, Vengan contended that the second marriage was not consummated and mere registration of the marriage alone cannot be a authentic proof for acceptance.
He further contended that as the first wife had withdrawn her complaint, the department cannot take action against him.
In his order, the judge said in the case of a Hindu Government servant, if he marries when his spouse is alive, he/she shall be liable to punishment under the Hindu Marriages Act read with Section 494 and 495 of IPC (and) has to face disciplinary action for violation of rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants conduct rules.
"Undoubtedly a second marriage during subsisting of the first marriage was certainly misconduct." The Judge, who rejected the contention of the petitioner that the bigamy complaint lodged against him by the first wife was later withdrawn, said it will not give him any premium nor will it be helpful to reduce the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the concerned authorities.
The judge then said the compulsory retirement imposed by the authorities does not suffer from any irregularity or patent illegalities in the eyes of law.