ORDER
Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. The Counsel for the respondent remains absent though the matter is called out both in the morning and in the afternoon Sessions.
2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner over again. It is the petitioner's case that he was appointed as a Security Guard in the year 1980. He was issued with a charge-memo to state that he had married for the second time during the life time of his legally wedded wife in the year 2001 and that since he had not divorced his wife in the first instance, the second marriage was void and was in violation of the Disciplinary Regulations of the respondent-Corporation. Articles of charge were also framed in this regard. The petitioner had replied to the same. It was his case that his wife was suffering from mental illness, from the date of marriage and that he did not lead a normal life with her and she was mentally handicapped and was duly certified in this regard. It is the petitioner's case that he had to take care of his wife as she was not capable of doing so herself and it is at the instance of his father-in-law that the petitioner had ma ried his sister-in-law, namely, the sister of his wife. This was to solvestwo situations; one, to provide him a marital life and secondly, to also take care of his invalid wife since she was mentally handicapped. It is in this situation that he had married and would seek to question the authority of the respondent to initiate action against the petitioner in this regard. He would submit that the respondent had conducted an enquiry into the circumstances above referred and since the enquiry officer had reported that the petitioner had in fact married for the second time during the life time of his wife, who was not divorced, the respondent had proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal. The same was challenged by way of an appeal which was also dismissed by the second respondent and it is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner would argue at length to contend that though it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had wedded for the second time, the order of dismissal was not warranted by way of punishment.
4. Regulation-16 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 reads as follows:
16. Bigamous marriage- (1) No Corporation servant shall enter into or contract a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and
(2) No Corporation servant having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract a marriage with any other person:
Provided that the Corporationmay permit a Corporation servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in Clause (1) and Clause (2), if it is satisfied that-
(a) Such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Corporation Servant and the other party to the marriage;
(b) there are other grounds for so doing.
In terms of Regulation 16(2)(b) which provides that the Corporation may condone a servant who has entered into such a marriage if there are grounds for so doing and in the case on hand, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed a crime. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Since there is no complaint against the petitioner as regards the commission of any offence, namely, of having entered into bigamous marriage, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed an offence of which the respondent-Corporation can take notice and proceed to hold an enquiry. The scope of equity under the Regulations would not extend to the personal relationships of the petitioner as long as, the same does not interfere with the discharge of duties. Hence, the allegation of having entered into a bigamous marriage or that the same has resulted in violation of discipline imposed by the respondent was totally out of proportion. There was no warrant for the extreme punishment of dismissal even if it could be presumed that in view of the admission of the petitioner himself as to having contracted a marriage during the life time of this wife without there being a valid divorce, the same was warranted. The punishment imposed is entirely disproportionate and the respondent-Corporation has failed in its duty in addressing the reasons assigned by the petitioner in condoning the indiscipline if it could be called as such.
5. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the validity of the above said Regulation, it can safely be said that the punishment imposed was wholly out of place and disproportionate with the alleged act of misconduct. There was a lapse on the part of the respondent in not considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner. In that, the petitioner has stated that his legally wedded wife was mentally handicapped and was not in a position to attend to her own needs and it is for this reason that at the instance of the father-in-law of the petitioner, he had married the sister of his wife. If the respondent-Corporation found itself competent to enquire into the personal actions or otherwise of the petitioner, these aspects also ought to have been addressed at the enquiry, which the respondent has failed to do.
6. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order of dismissal at Annexure-H stands quashed. In the circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has not rendered any service in the Respondent-Corporation, it would be unjust to impose a condition that he be reinstated with full backwages. It would however be appropriate that he be compensated for having been treated unjustly in the circumstances aforesaid and accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay backwages at the rate of 40% with continuity of service. Since it is stated that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation as on 1.7.2005, the respondent-Corporation shall grant him the benefits in consonance with this order notwithstanding that he has retired from service.