[2025:RJ-JP:29025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3514/2002 Sushil Kumar Jain son of Shri Poonam Chand Jain aged about 42 years resident of 7-D, 27 Mahavir Nagar, Kota and presently working as L.D.C. Collectorate, Kota ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through its secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Divisional Commissioner, Kota Division, Kota 3. Collector, Collectorate, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Srivastava For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 30/07/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.05.2002 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota Division, Kota-appellate authority whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the order dated 20.08.1985 passed by the District Collector, Kota-disciplinary authority under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1958’) dismissing him from services, has been affirmed. The relevant facts in brief are that while working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Collector, Kota, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 vide memorandum dated 11.11.1982 wherein, it was alleged [2025:RJ-JP:29025] (2 of 4) [CW-3514/2002] that while in Government service, despite the first wife surviving, he entered into second marriage with Vijaya D/o Shri Deep Chand Jain on 19.06.1982 which constituted gross misconduct under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. After conducting the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed, he was punished with the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ vide order dated 20.08.1985 which was unsuccessfully challenged by him before the appellate authority. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the self same charge, he faced a criminal trial wherein, he was acquitted. Next, he contended that the family dispute was settled amicably amongst the parties. He also contended that he was denied the copies of documents requested by him vide applications dated 15.01.1983 (Annexure-2) and 26.09.1983 (Annexure-3) adversely affecting his defence. His last submission is that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct found to be proved. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the orders impugned be quashed and set aside and he be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits or in the alternative, the penalty be substituted with lighter punishment. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. As is evident from the material on record, finding the charge levelled against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 vide memorandum dated 11.11.1982 to be proved, the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was inflicted upon the [2025:RJ-JP:29025] (3 of 4) [CW-3514/2002] petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.08.1985 and the appeal preferred thereagainst came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 28.05.2002. While dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority has, observing that the Criminal Case No.190/1992 registered against him under Sections 494/109 IPC resulted into his acquittal vide judgment dated 10.08.1994 on the basis of compromise in between the complainant Smt Vijay Laxmi and the petitioner-Shri Sushil Kumar whereunder, the complainant desired not to prosecute the matter further, held that since, acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case was not on merit; but, based on compromise between the parties, it could not be inferred that he did not enter into second marriage during the lifetime of first wife. This Court is in respectful agreement with the findings so recorded by the appellate authority more so when, findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are not based on findings recorded in the criminal case; rather, on the basis of evidence recorded during the disciplinary proceeding. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since, the family dispute has amicably been resolved between the parties, the charge could not have been held to be proved against him, does not merit acceptance. Since, as already observed, the charge of entering into second marriage during the lifetime of first wife has been found to be proved on the basis of evidence collected during the course of disciplinary proceeding, on the spacious plea of amicable settlement of dispute between the parties, the finding cannot be dislodged. [2025:RJ-JP:29025] (4 of 4) [CW-3514/2002] The third limb of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on denial of requisite documents as demanded by him vide applications dated 15.01.1983 and 26.09.1983. Despite repeated request of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy as to the prejudice caused to him on account of non-supply of documents prayed for. Even otherwise, the factum of entering into second marriage by the petitioner during the lifetime of his first wife has not been disputed even before this Court in absence whereof, this Court fails to comprehend as to how the denial of the documents prayed for caused any prejudice to petitioner’s defense. In so far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to quantum of punishment being disproportionate to the charge found to be proved is concerned, this Court does not find it to be so shockingly disproportionate to the conscious of the Court if juxtaposed to the charge found to be proved so as to warrant interference in its writ jurisdiction. Entering into second marriage by a Government servant during the lifetime of the spouse is a gross and grave misconduct which deserves the maximum penalty permissible under the Rules. Resultantly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /9