Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has set aside the dismissal order of a government employee who was dismissed from service on the ground that he was in a live-in relationship with another woman despite the fact that he is married and his wife is alive.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, while passing the order on July 14, made it clear to the state authorities to pass a fresh order imposing minor penalties.
The order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner, Gore Lal Verma, solely on the ground that despite being married to one Laxmi Devi, who is alive, the petitioner maintained an extra-marital relationship with another lady named Hemlata Verma and both are staying together as husband and wife. He also has three children from the said live-in relationship.
Passing the impugned order of dismissal, the authorities had recorded that the said conduct is against the provisions of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, and against the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. As such, the order of dismissal from service was passed.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that in a similar matter in case of one Aneeta Yadav, this court, after considering, set aside the dismissal order. However, an opportunity was granted to the respondents to award any minor penalty, if they so desire.
It was further argued that the said judgment was challenged in special leave to appeal and the Supreme Court refused to interfere. Consequently, the said special leave to appeal was dismissed.
After hearing the counsel, the court set aside his order of dismissal observing that considering the fact as well as the judgment of this court in the case of Aneeta Yadav, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit.
Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the respondent authority was directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall not be paid back wages from the date of dismissal till today, the court directed.
“It is open to the respondents to pass fresh orders for imposition of minor penalty in accordance with law, if so advised,” the court added.
