JUDGMENT
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. These appeals – one by the employee and the other by the employer – are directed against the common order by Justice B. Subhashan Reddy in Writ Petition No. 520 of 1993.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at the interlocutory stage, learned single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition itself by ordering for a modification of the order of the Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D. No. 510 of 1987 for reinstatement with all increments and rise in salary with all emoluments as well as continuity of service and 50% of back wages minus Rs. 500/- deductible as the compensation for loss to the employer.
3. The employee was proceeded against and in a domestic enquiry found guilty of driving the vehicle of the employer-Corporation in a rash and negligent manner resulting in an accident involving six guard stones of the road at a causeway and some damage to the vehicle, assessed at Rs. 500/-. No criminal charge, however, was preferred against the employee. His defence appears to be a plea that it was to avert a serious accident that he had moved the vehicle aside and crashed against the pavement guards, was not an act of rash and negligent driving by him, but a prudent act to save any loss of life or injury to the travelling passengers in the vehicle.
4. Although learned single Judge has not adverted to the necessary statements of fact in his judgment, the award discloses that after the damaged parts of the bus were repaired, it was put to road as usual and, “the evidence relied on by the respondent established that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner…..” The Labour Court, however, on punishment, has said :
“So far as the punishment is concerned the petitioner was imposed the extreme punishment of removal from service for the sin of causing the accident, which resulted in damage to the bus to a tune of Rs. 500/-. The above circumstances would strike to any ordinary prudent man that the extent of the above misconduct would never warrant any severe punishment more so the removal from service. It shows the ignorance of the respondent about the development of industrial law and standards that are being applied by the High Courts and the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of the punishment has forgotten that justice, equity and fairplay demand that the punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of offence charged. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionately excessive and it is not within the reach of natural justice. Even if it is accepted for a moment that the Corporation sustained loss in the hands of the petitioner, the Corporation can at best recover the amount of loss sustained by it, but it is not expected to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood for the sin of causing damage to the bus to a tune of Rs. 500/-.”
5. Our attention has been drawn to Part-IV of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950), which contains, inter alia, the regulations as to discipline and penalties and enumerates in the list of the penalties “recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee’s negligence or breach of orders”, as a minor punishment. It is not disputed before us that the Corporation has imposed the said punishment and recovery has been effected. A question has arisen before us, however, that once for the act of rash and negligent driving a decision is taken to impose a minor penalty, for the same act of alleged rash and negligent driving, can the employee be proceeded against and punished with the imposition of a major penalty. There are authorities which point out that recovery of a pecuniary loss by the employer from the employee is a civil action and it is within the competence and authority of the employer to recover from the employee any such loss in accordance with the contract of service or otherwise by a process in accordance with law. There is, however, unanimity of judicial opinion that two punishments for the same misconduct cannot be imposed. Learned counsel for the employer-Corporation has endeavoured before us and persuaded us to take notice of the commentaries and instructions issued from time to time by different employers, including the Central Government to its undertakings, as to the procedure and mode of recovery of any amount of pecuniary loss from the employee, as respects which they appear to say that apart from the disciplinary action for the alleged misconduct, loss can always be recovered by the employer from the employee. She has, however, not been able to bring to our notice any case in which the recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss has been ordered as a minor punishment and besides the recovery, another punishment – whether major or minor – has been imposed. One of the settle principles of law is that no one can be subjected to two punishments for the same misconduct or offence. There appears to be an error committed by the employer – Corporation in this behalf and obviously it has been done in ignorance of the provisions in Part-IV of the Classification, Control and Appeal Regulations.
6. We are informed, however, at the Bar that the employee has been reinstated and has already been paid 1/4 of the arrears of wages. Learned single Judge has taken notice of the recovery and pointed out that when back wages are paid, the amount which employer is entitled to recover as loss, shall be realised from the pay wages of the employee. The view that we have taken, however, leads us to conclude that besides the recovery, no other punishment can be imposed upon the employee. In view of the above, we are inclined to order for payment of the full back wages besides the reinstatement, which has already been effected, minus the amount already paid and Rs. 500/- which is the amount assessed for the loss that the employer has sustained.
7. In the result, Writ Appeal No. 1178 of 1995 is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 520 of 1993 is modified to the extent indicated above. As a consequence of the above, Writ Appeal No. 813 of 1994 is dismissed.
8. Order accordingly.