The Allahabad High Court has set aside a dismissal order passed against a person solely on the ground that he was maintaining a live-in relationship outside his marriage.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order on Wednesday, while hearing a petition filed by Gore Lal Verma.
The petition challenged the order dated January 31, 2020, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, the order dated August 31, 2020, whereby the appeal filed against the above order was dismissed, as well as the order dated December 3 and 11, 2020, whereby the revision filed against both the said orders was also rejected.
The Counsel for the petitioner said the order dated January 31, 2020 has been passed against the petitioner solely on the ground that despite being married, the petitioner maintained illegal relationship with another lady. He also has three children from the live-in relationship.
It is recorded that the said conduct is against the provisions of UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 and against the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. As such, the dismissal from service is warranted in terms of rules applicable to the services of the petitioner. The challenge to the said order in appeal and revision met the same fate.
The Counsel for the petitioner said that this issue of dismissal from service only on account of second marriage or live-in relationship came for consideration before the Supreme Court, in which the services of a petitioner were dismissed because he had opted for second marriage, while his first wife was alive.
The Court, after considering the case laws by means of a verdict dated May 2, 2016 allowed the Writ Petition (Aneeta Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and set aside the dismissal order.
The Court, however, granted an opportunity to the respondents to award any minor penalty, if they so desire, in accordance with law.
It is argued that the judgement of the Court in Anita Yadav (supra) relied upon the earlier verdict of the court in case of Shravan Kumar Pandey vs State of UP and others (2010) 8 ADJ 243.
In sum and substance, the argument is that the dismissal order has been passed solely on account of the petitioner having maintained live-in relationship outside marriage deserves to be set aside as the punishment is too harsh and thus, benefit to the judgement in the case of Anita Yadav (supra) should be extended to the petitioner also.
“I have perused the said order, which indicates that sole ground for dismissal from service of the petitioner is his having live-in relationship outside marriage,” he Court observed.
“Considering the fact as well as the judgement of the Court in case of Anita Yadav (supra), I do not see any reason as to why the petitioner should not be extended the same benefit extended to the petitioner in Anita Yadav (supra) judgement dated May 2, 2016. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the orders dated January 31, 2020, August 31, 2020 and December 3 and 11, 2020 passed by the Respondents respectively, are set aside,” the Court said.
The Court directed Mr Verma to be reinstated, however, the “petitioner shall not be paid the back wages from the date of dismissal till today”.
“It is open to the respondents to pass fresh orders for the imposition of minor penalty, in accordance with law if so advised. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order”, the order read.