AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents are heard.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been charged with following charges:-
“ ARTICLE-I
Shri Ratnesh Ashok Koli, Technician/D, Reactor Technology Division, BARC married Smt. Kamini P Haldankar, Technician/G, BTDG, BARC on 18.06.2019 while she was having a spouse living and failed to inform the fact of his marriage to Department.
2.By his aforesaid conduct, the said Shri Koli has violated the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening the provision of clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
Shri Ratnesh Ashok Koli, Technician/D, Reactor Technology Division, BARC hiding the fact of his first marriage with Smt. Kamini P. Haldankar, Technician/G, BTDG, BARC on 18.06.2019 contracted bigamous marriage with Smt, Shakuntala R. Koli (previously known as Ms. Shakuntala Muralidhar Marale) on 14.08.2021 without legally terminating his earlier marriage with Smt. Kamini P. Haldankar.
2.By his aforesaid conduct, the said Shri Koli has violated the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening the provision of clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III
Shri Ratnesh Ashok Koli, Technician/D, Reactor Technology Division, BARC harassed his wife Smt. Shakuntala R. Koli mentally and physically and threatened with dire consequences to kill her and her parents. He also gave wrong and misleading information about his wife Smt. Shakuntala R. Koli that she had accessed his medical records
2.By his aforesaid conduct, the said Shri Koli has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening the provision of clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-IV
Shri Ratnesh Ashok Koli, Technician/D, Reactor Technology Division, BARC failed to inform the Department about filing of criminal cases against him vide First Information No. 434/2022 dated 03.08.2022 under Section 498A, 494, 504, 506(2) and 34 of Indian Penal Code at Trombay Police Station and Criminal Case no. 238/2017 dated 20.02.2017 filed at Hon'ble Civil and Criminal Court, Belapur
2.By suppressing the above material information, Shri Koli has displayed lack of absolute integrity and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening the provision of clauses (i) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from these charges, it is seen that the applicant has been facing the charge of Bygamy in the disciplinary proceedings and also of mentally and physically harassing the wife and her parents. He submits that the charge of bigamous marriage cannot be proved as there is judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Santosh Motiram Chavan versus Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 540 of 2025 to the effect that when a specific case of bigamy is being considered by the competent court, the Railways should have refrained from taking upon themselves the task of proving the charge of bigamy. He submits that the charge of bigamy cannot be inquired into by the disciplinary authority and the charge of harassment of wife and her parents has been held to be not proved by the Inquiry Officer.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the cause of action itself does not arise as the Inquiry Officer has submitted the report and submission of inquiry report cannot be a cause of action so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for their respective parties.
In the case of Santosh Motiram Chavan (supra), it has been held that department cannot inquire into the charge of bigamy when competent court is considering the matter. Even if the contentions of the applicant are accepted, charge of not intimating the department about criminal cases initiated against him (Article-IV) still holds the field. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to interfere in proceedings of inquiry.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant be permitted to cite the judgment in the matter of Santosh Motiram Chavan (supra) before the disciplinary authority. Applicant can raise all the points as are available to him in view of the judgment in the case of Santosh Motiram Chavan (supra). We hope and trust that the disciplinary authority will take appropriate decision having regard to the points raised by the applicant and the judgments cited by him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant be permitted to raise preliminary objection before the disciplinary authority and disciplinary authority be asked to decide preliminary objection and he should be asked not to proceed with the inquiry till the preliminary objection is decided. This submission is rejected because the stage of raising preliminary objection has already been over. In this view of matter, OA is disposed of with above directions.
Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.