Tapen Sen, J.
1. The petitioner, Paikas Khaka has filed this Writ Application for quashing the order dated 14.5.1993 issued by the respondent No. 2 (The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) as contained at Annexure 10 communicating his approval of the petitioner's dismissal from the service.
2. According to the petitioner, the school is a Government aided school and itis run by the Managing Committee on funds of the Government.
3. The petitioner has stated that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and was appointed by the Secretary of the Saint Stephen's Boys' Middle School, Itki, Ranchi by letter dated 20.1.1986 as contained at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined on 20.3.1986.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner's appointment was provisionally approved by the respondent No. 2 (the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) by his letter dated 28.8.1986 and payment of salary in the prescribed scale was made by the Government. The petitioner has stated that his appointment had also been confirmed by the Managing Committee by resolution dated 31.3.1987 (Annexure 3) with effect from 20.3.1986.
5. On 23.7.1992, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the respondent No. 3 (the Chairman of the School) giving him 72 hours to file explanation in relation to the allegations contained therein. In the aforementioned show-cause notice, copy of which is contained at Annexure 4, the allegation against the petitioner was that although he had married one Ursulla Nag according to Christian rites on 1.6.1987, yet, while functioning as Head Master of the school, he took a second wife, namely, one Ms. Bimla Kujur during the subsistence of the first one and married her before the Marriage Officer, Lohardaga on 22.9.1989 without obtaining divorce or without getting the first marriage dissolved by a competent authority. Consequently, it was alleged that his act construed misconduct under Clause 36(k) and (m) of the terms and conditions of the Service contained in the bye-laws and accordingly he was directed to file explanation as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him.
6. According to the petitioner, the charge that he had taken a second wife during the subsistence of the first marriage was totally baseless in as much as his first wife, Ursulla Nag had separated since 13.8.1988 and she had signed a document(which the petitioner calls a document of written dissolution of marriage) before the members of the community (Talaknama) on 10.4.1991 vide Annexures-6/1 and 6/2. According to the petitioner, this dissolution by the first wife was made on 10.4.1991 and on the same day, the petitioner also signed a similar document. According to the petitioner, both these documents were signed in the presence of various witnesses and therefore, the marriage having been dissolved on 10.4.1991, the allegation that he had taken the second wife during the subsistence of the first marriage was therefore totally baseless. The petitioner has further stated that on 25.8.1992, the respondent No. 4 (the Secretary, of the School) issued a letter (Annexure 7) by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 1.9.1992 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and also without approval of the competent authority.
7. According to the petitioner, the District Superintendent of Education reacted sharply to the aforementioned letter of dismissal and set aside the proceedings against the petitioner by his letter dated 30.10.1992. According to the District Superintendent of Education, the disciplinary proceeding against the Head Master was contrary to rules in as much as any action taken against the Master necessarily required the approval of the District Superintendent of Education, which, according to him, had not been taken as no information was given to him. Accordingly, the District Superintendent of Education directed the Secretary of the School to be present in his office on 10.11.1992 along with all records so that the action taken against the Head Master could be scrutinized. However, in the last paragraph of the letter, the District Superintendent of Education directed that pending scrutiny and pending final orders, the petitioner would continue to be posted on his position and his office should immediately be unlocked enabling and allowing free access to the petitioner.
8. The respondent No. 5 (Area Education Officer, Bero) in the meantimeconducted an enquiry and recommended vide Annexure 9 that the order of dismissal be cancelled. However, after about six months, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 24.5.1993 by the respondent No. 2 by which the order of dismissal passed by the Secretary of the School was approved, without taking into consideration the report of the respondent No. 5 dated 28.9.1992 mentioned above. The order by which the respondent No. 2 approved the decision of the school to dismiss the petitioner from services is contained at Annexure 10 being letter dated 14.5.1993 and according to the petitioner the said letter does not assign any reason and is just a mechanical letter approving the decision notwithstanding valid explanations having been given and notwithstanding the report indicated above.
9. The petitioner filed a representation on 31.5.1993 vide Annexure 11 but nothing happened.
10. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has inter alia been stated that the petitioner is a Oraon by caste although he subscribes to the Christian faith but is governed by the customary laws of his society. He has brought on record the caste certificate, which is contained at Annexure 12 of the said Supplementary Affidavit. He has further stated that in his Oraon Community, divorce by the wife is permissible and the divorce given by his first wife Ursulla Nag was allowed by a decree of the Village Panchayat in accordance with tribal customs and an Award to that effect was made by the Village Panchayat in its meeting held on 13.8.1988 and from a perusal of the same, it would be apparent that the Village Panchayat accepted the divorce. A copy of the said decree of the Village Panchayat dated 13.8.1988 is marked Annexure 13 to the Supplementary Affidavit. The petitioner has stated that the Panchayat of the village is supreme and after the said decree, the marital bond between him and Ursulla came to an end, and thereafter, the petitioner was free to marry again and his marriage on 22.5.1989 with Bimla Kujur was therefore perfectly valid and there was no question of bigamy.
11. The respondent No. 2 (District Superintendent of Education) has filed a counter affidavit in this case and has attempted to justify the action of the Managing Committee. At paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, he has stated that prior to dismissal, the petitioner had been given sufficient time by the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee was competent to take disciplinary action as per Section 5(2) of the bye-laws. In support of the aforesaid contention, the respondent No. 2 has brought on record the show-cause notice issued by the Chairman of the school dated 11.7.1992 (Annexure A) giving the petitioner 72 hours to file his explanation. Annexure A appears to be the same letter which the petitioner has brought on record as Annexure 4 to the writ application. The respondent No. 2 has also annexed the bye-laws regulating the constitution and function of the Managing Committee of Minority Schools in Chhotanagpur and relying upon Section 4 thereto, the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the Managing Committee of all Minority Schools has the right to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff and also to take disciplinary action etc.
12. At paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit the respondent No. 2 has stated that the petitioner's explanation was fabricated because he had married another lady on 22.5.1989 in the Court of the Marriage Officer, Lohardaga during the subsistence of the first marriage and had not obtained any decree of divorce from a competent Court of Law. According to the respondent No. 2 and as stated by him at paragraph 22 and specially in reply of the paragraph 17 of the writ application, where the petitioner had stated that the respondent No. 5 in his enquiry report had recommended for cancellation of the order of dismissal, it has been stated that the Area Education Officer had not gone in details of the case because it was crystal clear that the petitioner had committed misconduct by marrying a second woman. According to him and as stated at paragraph 24, he has approved the dismissal order after detailed enquiryand after having found that the action taken by the Management was justified.
13. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Chairman and Secretary of the School) have also come up with a counter affidavit and they have stated at paragraph 7 that it is wrong to say that Ursulla Nag had separated from the petitioner since 13.8.1988. According to them, the relationship as husband and wife in accordance with the Christian rites still subsists and it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to state that Ursulla Nag had given a written dissolution before the members of Village Panchayat on 10.4.1991. According to them, this written dissolution is a creation of the petitioner to suit his own purpose. They have further stated that according to the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, a dissolution of marriage can be effected only upon the grounds enumerated under Section 10 of the said Act and the Court cannot enlarge them by reference to other Statute or Personal Law. According to them, on 6.11.1990, the petitioner had filed a Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 51 of 1990 and in that petition he had clearly admitted that the marriage with Ursulla had been solemnized on 1.6.1987 according to the Christian rites. In that view of the matter, according to these respondents the separation as alleged by the written dissolution on 10.4.1991 by Annexure 6/1 and 6/2 before the so called Village Panchayat is therefore not at all in accordance with law and cannot be made applicable. These respondents have brought on record Annexure A which is the photocopy of the certified copy of the Plaint filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act praying before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi that the marriage between him and Ursulla be dissolved by a Decree of Divorce. Annexure A/1 is the photo copy of the order sheet of the said case and it shows that the petitioner did not take any step from 7.6.1991 onwards as a result where of on 7.7.1992, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. These respondents have also brought on record the marriage certificate dated 22.5.1989 executed before the Mar-riage Officer, Lohardaga and which establishes the fact that the petitioner married Bimla Kujur on that day.
14. According to these respondents, since the Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 51/90 was dismissed for non-prosecution due to lapse on the part of the petitioner, his second marriage with Bimla Kujur before the Marriage Officer was void since his relationship with first wife (Ursulla Nag) continued. Consequently, according to them, the petitioner could not have legally married Bimla Kujur. These respondents have further stated that after having performed the second marriage on 22.5.1989, the petitioner in order to save himself from difficulties, filed the aforementioned Matrimonial Suit on 6.11.1990 i.e. after second marriage praying for dissolution of the first marriage. They have also stated that the petitioner gave a false declaration which is punishable under Section 66 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. They have also stated that the petitioner has come with unclean hands and all these actions amount to misconduct on his part. These respondents have also stated and submitted at paragraph 26 that it is true that on one occasion, the District Superintendent of Education (respondent No. 2) did not find favour with the dismissal order of the petitioner, but on being pointed out by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the relevant papers as also the law on the subject, the respondent No. 2 recalled his order as contained at Annexure 8 and finally approved the dismissal order and merely because he had earlier stayed the operation of the order, the petitioner cannot be allowed to encash it in his favour.
15. Thus, what is absolutely apparent is that on the one hand, the petitioner claims that in view of the marriage having been brought to an end by the Village Panchayat on 13.8.1988, he therefore did not commit any offence when he took on a second wife.
16. A lot of arguments have been made on the interpretation of the Christian Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act and so on and so forth. A lot of arguments havealso been made that as per Oraon custom and on the point that the petitioner's wife executed a document of divorce. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Decree of Divorce was granted by the Village Panchayat on 13.8.1988 and in. support thereof he has brought on record Annexure 13 appended to the Supplementary Affidavit.
17. This Court is neither convinced about the marriage of the petitioner nor is it convinced about the argument to the effect that the petitioner did not take on a second wife. His assertion to the effect that on 13.8.1988, by Annexure 13, the Village Panchayat had dissolved the marriage has no relevance considering the fact that if it ultimately brought to an end the relationship of the parties, then why did the petitioner go and file a Divorce Suit under the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on 6.11.1990 Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit brought on record by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 go to show that the petitioner himself, in the capacity of the plaintiff, stated before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi that both the petitioner and Ursulla Nag were by faith Christians and belonged to the Church of North India, Ranchi and that the marriage between him and Ursulla Nag was solemnized on 1.6.1987 according to Christian rites. That being the position, by trying to cling on to a submission that on 13.8.1988, the Village Panchayat dissolved the marriage has hardly any relevance to the issue. Additionally, from his own saying, and from a perusal of Annexures 6/1 and 6/2, Ursulla Nag and the petitioner sighed a so-called Talaknama and which says that on and from that date i.e. 10.4.1991, the parties were becoming separate. If these documents are being relied upon by the petitioner vide Annexures 6/1 and 6/2, then that is all the more reason to doubt the veracity of the other document i.e. Annexure 13 to the Supplementary Affidavit and which is the so- called approval of the Village Panchayat said to have been given on 13.8.1988. This so called Decree of the Panchayat has not even been referred to inAnnexures 6/1 and 6/2 which are subsequent documents signed on 10.4.1991. On the contrary, all that Annexures 6/1 and 6/2 speak of is that they were married on 1.6.1987 but on account of not being able to adjust with each other, they started living separate since 13.8.1988. It does not say that on 13.8.1988, a Village Panchayat had granted a Decree of Divorce.
18. What is also shocking is that in the entire pleadings, right up to Supplementary Affidavit, the petitioner did not whisper about his having filed suit on 6.11.1990 under the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. When the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 brought photocopies of the certified copies of this document along with the order sheet, the petitioner filed a reply wherein in an equally shocking and nonchalant tone, he states at paragraph 9 that he never filed a divorce petition in the Court of learned District Judge, Ranchi. Such a statement must be rejected. It is merely a bald statement in the shape of a reply and its falsehood stares on the face when one looks into the photocopies of the certified copies (Annexure A, A/1 and B appended to the Counter Affidavit of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4). Consequently, this Court is definitely of the opinion that Annexures 6/1 and 6/2 of the writ petition and Annexure 13 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner are manufactured documents which have no legs to stand.
The action of the petitioner in suppressing facts relating to his having filed a Divorce Suit and its subsequent dismissal for non prosecution is a very serious lapse on his part and this Court would have proceeded against him but considering the fact that he has already been punished by dismissal from service, this Court takes a lenient view and allows the matter to rest at that.
19. Thus, rejecting and not taking into consideration the so called Talaknama, dated 10.4.1991 and also the so called approval by the Village Panchayat on 13.8.1988, the fact that emerges from the photocopies of the certified copies are that the petitioner was married with Ursulla Nagon 1.6.1987. From the photocopies of the certified copies of the documents of marriage before the Marriage Officer, Lohardaga, it is also apparent that the petitioner married Bimla Kujur on 25.2.1989 and filed a Divorce Petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on 6.11.1990 i.e. after the second marriage. It is also apparent by Annexure A/1 of the Counter Affidavit of respondent No. 4 that the divorce suit also stood dismissed for non prosecution on 17.7.1992. Therefore, for all practical purposes, there was no Decree of Divorce in favour of the petitioner dissolving his marriage with Ursulla.
20. For the reasons stated above, 'this Court holds that no illegality was committed by the respondents in taking action against the petitioner. Consequently, there is no merit in this Writ Application. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.