Civil appellant jurisdiction, Civil appeal no. 1662 of 2015 (Arising out of slip (C) no. 5097 of 2012) Khursheed Ahmad Khan vs State of U.P & ORS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1662 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.5097 OF 2012)
KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

The appellant was employed as Irrigation Supervisor, Tubewell Division, Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and posted at IV th Sub Division, Hasanpur. He was served with a charge sheet alleging that during existence of first marriage with Sabina Begum, he married Anjum Begum and thereby violated Rule 29 of the Conduct Rules and further alleging that he had given misleading information to the authorities that he had given divorce to Sabina Begum. The appellant denied the charge by stating that the complaint made by Shagufta Parveen, sister of his first wife was due to her personal enmity. He had duly divorced his first wife, before performing the second marriage. However, he had made a statement to the contrary in enquiry proceedings initiated by the National Human Rights Commission due to fear of the police. It was only a mistake that he could not get the name of his first wife corrected in the service book. It is on record that before the charge sheet, on a complaint by the sister of the first wife of the appellant, the National Human Rights Commission had issued notice to the appellant dated 27th October, 2006 and conducted an inquiry through the Superintendent of Police, District Moradabad who submitted a report to the effect that the appellant had in fact performed a second marriage without the first marriage having been dissolved. The S.S.P., Moradabad also wrote to the department for taking action as per rules. It is on that basis that the department appears to have initiated action. In disciplinary proceedings, an inquiry officer was appointed who gave a report that the charge was fully proved. The appellant was furnished a copy of inquiry report and given an opportunity to respond to the same vide letter dated 21st January, 2008. His reply being not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal on 17th June, 2008….read more