THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 3923 and 17235 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions, one filed by the workman and the other filed by the management, against the Award made in I.D. No. 25 of 2003 dated 25.9.2004 are being disposed of together, since common question of law and fact arise for consideration in both the writ petitions. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3923 of 2005 and respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 17235 of 2005 is referred to as the ‘workman’ and respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 3923 of 2005 and petitioner in W.P. No. 17235 of 2005 is referred to as the ‘management’. It appears, when the workman was in service with APSRTC as driver, he was involved in a criminal case for the suicide committed by his wife. Subsequently, the parents of the deceased wife stated before the Court that their daughter died by committing suicide, due to unbearable stomach pain but not for any illegality committed by the workman. Therefore, the criminal case ended in acquittal. However, in the meanwhile, the management issued a charge-sheet dated 4.9.2000, and suspended the workman, from service, on the ground that though he was arrested by the Police, Banswada on 13.7.2000 and was released on bail on 20.7.2000 for the alleged offence under Sections 306 and 201 IPC, he did not intimate the same to the management, which is in contravention of Regulation 26 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. An enquiry was conducted and the workman was removed from service on the said charge. Aggrieved thereby, the workman preferred I.D. No. 25 of 2003 before the Labour Court. Though none was examined on either side before the Labour Court, Ex.W-1 was got marked on behalf of the workman and Ex.M-1 was got marked on behalf of the management. On a consideration of the material available on record, the Labour Court gave its finding that the management is not at all justified in removing the petitioner from service, which reads as under: “Admittedly the misconduct what is prescribed under Regulation 26 of APSRTC is a negligible misconduct and the same is not likely to affect the revenues of the respondent-corporation nor it got any impact on the administration of the respondent corporation. In fact this is not a case where the respondent should keep the petitioner under suspension. Generally any employee will be placed under suspension if the misconduct reported is very serious, and if at all the employee is continued in service without suspending him he is likely to perpetuate the same type of misconduct which may cause disturbance or loss to the employer. Such a course of action of suspension will be common in the case of misappropriation or serious charges of C&T irregularities or frequent unauthorized absence which will effect the revenues of the respondent corporation. If at all an employee is arrested on a false charge by the police it cannot be a ground to suspend the employee since no reasonable and ordinary prudent employer will go to such an extent to trouble the employee for such a negligible misconduct. Therefore the respondent in the present case is not only passed unjustified order of removal from service against the petitioner but also unnecessarily kept the petitioner under suspension when the misconduct complaint against him is very negligible and not likely to be perpetuated. Therefore the impugned order of the respondent will not stand under law for the reason that the punishment imposed by the respondent is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore, the respondent is not at all justified in removing the petitioner from service”. Accordingly the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but with 50% of backwages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the portion of the Award which denied 50% of the backwages, the workman filed the first writ petition and aggrieved by the entire Award passed by the Labour Court, the management filed the second writ petition. Admittedly, this is only a case where the workman did not intimate the management as to his arrest by the police in a criminal case. Of course, non-intimation of the fact of arrest definitely is a misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 26 of APSRTC Employes (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. But, in this case, it has to be examined whether for such misconduct a major penalty of removal from service could have been imposed by the management? The said Regulation itself does not support the contention of the management that once it is a misconduct, the management has all the power to remove the workman from service. Regulation 26 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 reads as under: “An employee who may be arrested for any reason shall intimate the fact of his arrest as soon as possible thereafter to his immediate superior officer even though he might subsequently have been released on bail. Failure to do so render the employee liable for disciplinary action on that ground alone apart from any action that may be taken against him on the basis of the result of the criminal proceedings launched against him”. The first part of the above regulation itself would indicate that the management is at liberty to construe the non- intimation of the fact of arrest by a delinquent as a misconduct and punish him suitably. But, the later part of the regulation would indicate that a major penalty of removal from service etc. can be imposed only in case of conviction of the delinquent by a competent criminal Court and not otherwise. Further, no prudent management would impose such an ultimate punishment of removal from service of its employee simply because he had not intimated about his arrest in a criminal case. This is not so a grave misconduct requiring removal of the petitioner from service, even if it is proved. Only in a case where the delinquent has been convicted, a major penalty as contemplated under the Regulations can be imposed apart from the punishment suffered by the delinquent for the misconduct of not intimating about his arrest in criminal case. Therefore, imposing of major punishment of removal from service is without authority of law and the removal order passed by the management is liable to be set aside. The Labour Court rightly did so, but while directing reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, granted only 50% of the backwages, even though the disciplinary authority cannot exercise the power of removal of the workman from service, for such a minor misconduct. However, the petitioner cannot escape for the proved misconduct of not intimating about his arrest in a criminal case. It appears, he was paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Therefore, denying the remaining wages from the date of suspension till the date of removal i.e. from 4.9.2000 till 24.1.2001 would be suffice. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court is required to be modified as under: “The respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman with continuity of service and full backwages and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is entitled for the subsistence allowance which he was already paid. However, it is made clear that the workman is not entitled for the full wages from the date of suspension till the date of removal i.e. from 4.9.2000 till 24.1.2001. Further, the management shall impose the punishment of deferment of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect”. For the reasons furnished above, W.P. No. 3923 of 2006 filed by the workman is allowed in part and W.P. No. 17235 of 2005 filed by the management is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: -6-2010. MVB.