Dismissing a plea moved by a woman constable Sujita, challenging her removal from service for getting into a second marriage with a colleague whose first wife was still alive, Justice SM Subramaniam, said: “When the Conduct Rules stipulate that contracting a marriage with a person whose spouse is living is a misconduct, and in the present case, with the first wife herself lodging a complaint with the competent authorities about the second marriage of Sujita with her husband Christhudoss and that being established beyond any pale of doubt, the punishment of removal imposed cannot be said to be excess or not in commensuration with the gravity of the proved charges.”
Further, pointing out that though matrimonial life appears to be a private affair, the same has got nexus with the social living of the public servants, Justice Subramaniam said: “When there is a nexus between the ‘personal life’ and the ‘public life’, the adverse consequences of not maintaining both in a balanced manner would affect the efficiency level of the public servants.”
“Therefore, the inseparability of the concepts of ‘private life’ and ‘public life’ should not be neglected by anyone to escape from the clutches of law. One may argue that personal life is unconnected with public duties. Such arguments are widely made only on certain personal motives or to achieve selfish goals,” he said.
Citing the proverb “when the character is lost, everything is lost”, Justice Subramaniam held that this Court believes that one cannot brush aside the point that personal life would have an impact in the performance of the official duties of the public servants.