PAMPATHY REDDY S/O SIDDANNA, DRIVER, JEWARGI DEPOT. GULBARGA DIVISION Vs. N.E.K.R.T.C. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER N.E.K.R.T.C. GULBARGA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) THE Petitioner was appointed as a driver under the Respondent in the year 1998. There were no allegations of misconduct, non -feasance or mis -feasance against the Petitioner. It transpires that the Petitioner's wife however, had made allegations against the Petitioner of criminal offences and had lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police, as a result of which, he was taken into custody and kept behind bars for over 20 days. This is not a disputed fact. By virtue of the Petitioner having been kept in custody, though not by virtue of any order of conviction, but merely on a complaint by his wife and the Respondents in turn having learnt of the arrest of the Petitioner, had placed him under suspension invoking Regulation 21 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 and a charge -sheet was issued to the Petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be punished for having been arrested and kept behind bars for more than 48 hours. The Petitioner had therefore, filed a civil suit and sought for a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents from taking any further action, pursuant to the show cause notice and the charge -sheet. The trial Court had granted an order of injunction, which was challenged by way of an appeal by the Respondents. In the appeal, the appellate Court, while referring to several regulations found, that an order of suspension issued by the Respondents was an appealable order and since the Petitioner was afforded with an alternative remedy, the trial Court having granted the order of injunction, allowed the appeal. This is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) FROM a reading of the regulations and from the above facts and circumstance, it cannot be said that an employee of the Respondents being behind bars for over 48 hours would, per se, constitute an act of misconduct. Regulation 21 which provides for suspension of an employee, who has remained behind bars for more than 48 hours is possibly incorporated by way of prudence to ensure that a person with criminal antecedents is not continued in employment and is immediately placed under suspension with a provision for revoking the same or modifying the same, dependant upon the circumstances of the case. This is evident from Clause (c) of Regulation 21. But the Respondents proceeding on the footing that the unfortunate circumstance of an employee being put behind bars, for whatever reason, would constitute an act of misconduct, is not tenable and cannot be taken to its logical end. As in the instant case, when there is no criminal proceeding against the Petitioner and when it did not involve any act on the part of the Petitioner in relation to his duties having a bearing on the employer -employee relationship, the Respondents seeking to initiate disciplinary proceedings merely because he was behind bars at the instance of his wife, would be totally out of place and would result in gross injustice.