JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 31.7.2000 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and the order dated 8.7.1988 (Annexure-8 to the petition) and the order dated 30.9.1989 (Annexure-10 to the petition).
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Uttar Pradesh on 14.2.1977. It is alleged that his work and conduct was good and there was no adverse entry against him. On 21.9.1985, the petitioner was suspended and a chargesheet served on him on 21.3.1987 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. The petitioner sent a reply (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition). Thereafter an enquiry was held and after show cause notice, he was dismissed on 1.7.1988 vide Annexure-8 to the petition. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 30.8.1989, vide Annexure-10 to the petition. The petitioner then went to the Tribunal, which rejected his claim petition. Hence, this writ petition.
3. A large number of points have been raised in this petition but, in our opinion, the first argument itself is sufficient to allow this petition and hence, we are not going into the other arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The charge against the petitioner as seen from the chargesheet is that although he had a married wife, he lived with one Champa Devi for seven months and this was in violation of Rule 29 to the Government Conduct Rules which prohibits bigamy.
5. Rule 29 (1) of the U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, states :
“No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him.”
6. In our opinion, merely because a man lived with a woman, it does not mean that he is married to her. Unless the evidence proves the second marriage, it cannot be inferred that merely because the petitioner lived with Champa Devi for seven months, he was married to her. In fact, Champa Devi had filed a case under Section 376/366, I.P.C., against the petitioner but the petitioner was acquitted in that criminal case vide Judgment dated 11.9.1986 (Annexure-11 to the petition).
7. In paragraph 13 of its judgment, the Tribunal has stated that though the second marriage is not strictly proved by the evidence, yet it is an act unbecoming of a Government servant. In our opinion. Rule 29 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules will only apply if there was a second marriage, i.e., bigamy. Since the Tribunal Itself has held that the second marriage was not proved, we fail to understand how the petitioner could have been held guilty of bigamy.
8. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, 1998 (3) SCC 227. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and, in our opinion, the same is distinguishable.
9. In paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has quoted the following observations of the Tribunal :
“Though it would be ideal If sexual relationship is confined to legal wedlock, there is no law in our country which makes sexual relationship of two adult Individuals of different sex, unlawful unless the relationship is adulterous or promiscuous. If a man and a woman are residing under the same roof and if there is no law prohibiting such a residence, what transpires between them is not a concern of their employer.”
10. The Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of its judgment has merely said that it disapproves the above observation of the Tribunal.
However, no reasoning has been given in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court as to why it disapproved the above observations of the Tribunal. It is a settled principle that a decision is an authority for the principle of law It has laid down vide AIR 1975 SC 1087, AIR 1990 SC 781, AIR 1983 SC 1246, 1996 (6) SCC 44 and AIR 1985 SC 218, Hence, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable.
11. It may be mentioned that the misconducts for which a Government servant can be punished are stated in the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules. In our opinion, unless an act is regarded as a misconduct under the relevant service rules, no punishment can be given for It.
12. In Pravina Solanki v. State of U. P., 2001 (2) AWC 1592 : 2001 (2) ESC 719, this Court held that unless an employee does some act which interferes with his/her official function, then ordinarily whatever he/she does in his/her private life cannot be regarded as misconduct.
13. This Court in Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, 2001 (3) AWC 1778 : AIR 2001 All 254, has held that a man and woman can live together if they wish without marrying. This may be regarded immoral by society but it is not illegal. We may mention there is difference between law and morality, as the British jurists, Bentham and Austin pointed out. Hence, merely because the petitioner lived with a woman voluntarily who was not his wife for seven months, this in our opinion, does not amount to the misconduct of bigamy, as there was no marriage. In the modern times values have changed, and we cannot import old Ideas into modern times.
14. For the reasons given above this writ petition is allowed.
15. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 31.7.2000 as well as the orders dated 8.7.1988 and 30.9.1989 are quashed. The petitioner will be reinstated within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned and shall be given back salary from the date of
suspension till the date of reinstatement within two months, with 12% interest.