Misconduct — bigamy

A married man and an unmarried woman residing under the same roof does not involve moral turpitude.

Applicant, Income Tax Officer, was proceeded against on a charge that he contracted a second marriage with Smt. K.R.Aruna while his first wife was alive and the first marriage has not been dissolved and thereby violated rule 21(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, and that he has been living with Smt. Aruna and has children by her and thereby exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and violated rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The disciplinary authority held the first part of the charge as not proved and the second part as proved and compulsorily retired him from service.

Tribunal held that the argument advanced by the applicant that for a conduct which has no relation to the discharge of his official duties, a Government servant cannot be proceeded against departmentally, in principle, has no merit. There is no case for the disciplinary authority that Smt. Aruna is a woman married to somebody else. Under these circumstances, even if it is established that the applicant had lived with her or even cohabited with her, it cannot be said that the relationship is adulterous. To make such a relationship adulterous, a man should have had sexual relationship with another woman, who is legally wedded wife of another person. Therefore there is no basis for the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the applicant was guilty of adulterous conduct. 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 and it does not involve moral turpitude. Even if factually, the allegation that the applicant who is already married to another woman is living with Smt. Aruna is proved to be true, that alone will not justify a finding that the applicant is guilty of misconduct.