ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. It appears that as a result of an accident the property of the appellant was damaged and this damage was estimated at Rs 500, in addition, the delinquent driver was subjected to a departmental enquiry on the allegation that he had been guilty of rash and negligent driving. The delinquent driver contended that in order to avert a serious accident he had swerved his I Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 9132 of 1996 vehicle aside and crashed into the pavement guards, as a result of which damage was caused to the vehicle. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the evidence relied upon by the management did establish negligence on a the part of the delinquent driver. However, on the question of punishment the Labour Court came to the conclusion that he was doubly punished and, therefore, set aside the order of removal from service. The management carried the matter to the High Court and the learned Single Judge partially allowed the writ petition directing reinstatement and 50 per cent of back wages. The amount of Rs 500 awarded by way of damages was ordered to be deducted from the amount that became due. The management challenged this order before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the delinquent driver was entitled to full back wages. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. We think that the entire approach of the Division Bench of the High Court is incorrect. The driver had caused pecuniary loss to the appellant and C that was estimated to be Rs 500. It was this pecuniary loss which was ordered to be recovered from the delinquent. In addition to that, the delinquent was punished for misconduct and it is that punishment with which the Labour Court interfered and so also did the learned Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that 50 per cent of back wages should be refunded to the delinquent besides reinstatement. Against that order both the delinquent and the management went up in appeal. The High Court modified the order of the learned Single Judge and directed payment of full back wages. In other words, the Only order that survived was the reimbursement of the loss occasioned to the appellant on account of the act of the delinquent driver. It is true that that has been shown to he a penalty under Regulation 8(v) of the Regulations. But the penalty for the act of negligence was removal from service. The explanation to Regulation 8, however, enumerates various penalties which are not to be treated as penalties and one of them is as clause (5) thereof says :

"The penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employees negligence or breach of orders, may be imposed in addition to any other penalty which may be inflicted in respect of the same act of negligence or breach of orders."

This clause clearly says that the penalty of recovering loss caused to the management under Regulation (I) (v) shall not preclude the management from imposing any other penalty. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in thinking that this was a case of double jeopardy. We think that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was eminently just and fair and the Division Bench of the High Court should not have interfered with that order.

4. In the result, we set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge. Any payment made in pursuance of that order of the learned Single Judge should be made within six weeks from oday. The appeal will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.