Shyam Sunder vs Lt. Governor And Ors

Jasmine Ahmed, J

This is third round of litigation before this Tribunal, first one being OA No.2726/2001, which was decided on 8.01.2003. In the aforesaid OA, the prayer was for reinstatement in service because the applicant was dismissed from service for misconduct of having married to another woman named Smt. Suraj Mukhi without seeking divorce from his first wife Smt. Sushila Devi, who was still alive. Taking into consideration the facts involved in the case, a detailed order was passed by this Tribunal, holding as follows:

"6. As regards the violation of rule 8 (a) and rule 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules is concerned, it is only in the case of grave misconduct then punishment as per these rules can be imposed. So far as these are concerned, I may mention the misconduct of applicant is quite grave besides that it is a continuing one, because the applicant continues to live with second wife since being a Govt. servant he has married second time when his first wife is alive and not got legally divorced, which is not permissible. Besides that there is a admission on the part of the applicant that he has filed the agreement of separation between husband and wife which also shows that marriage with the first wife still subsists and no decree of annulment of marriage has been passed. It is so pleaded even in the OA itself. Since the agreement to move the application for grant of divorce by mutual consent has also been placed on record. It appears that while the enquiry was in process the applicant has not placed on record before the enquiry officer if any decree granted by the court of law dissolving marriage has been passed.

Hence, it is fact that applicant has married second time while his first wife was alive. OA is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed."

Thereafter,   the   applicant   filed   second   OA   bearing No.3662/2017. The applicant withdrew the said OA on 9.11.2017 for filing a petition before appropriate forum. After that the applicant filed W.P. (C) 1154/2018 and C.M. 4837-38-39/2018  before  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  of  Delhi,  which  was disposed of with the direction of alternative remedy being available, observing as follows:

"3......... Since the  jurisdiction  to seek  reinstatement of petitioner  lies  with  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, therefore, petitioner ought to avail of the remedies by approaching Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi within four weeks.

In view of aforesaid, this petition and application are disposed of with permission to petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal who shall proceed on merits, if it is so done."

Now, this third OA has been filed before this Tribunal wherein the applicant has prayed for the same relief of reinstatement in service with all back wages as prayed in the first OA.

The matter was discussed at length in OA No.2726/2001, which was filed on the same issue of dismissal from service on the ground of having married to another woman without divorce while the first wife was alive. The aforesaid OA was dismissed. Therefore, filing another OA before the Tribunal on the same issue and with the same prayer will be directly in teeth with the principle of res judicata. The prayer of the applicant thus cannot be entertained and the OA is dismissed being barred by the principle of res judicata.