JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forth-with and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Perused the record available.

3. The petitioner employee, by this petition, has put-forth prayer clause 13-A and B, as under:-

" (A) By issuing the appropriate writ, order, direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Exh.O-5 in Revision (ULP) No.34/2017 on 12.04.2018 by Industrial Court Ahmednagar, and further quash and set aside the order passed below Exh. U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.09/2017 on 05.10.2017 by Labour Court, Ahmednagar.

(B) By issuing the appropriate writ, order, direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to allow the application below Exh. U -2 filed by petitioner in Complaint (ULP) No.0-9/2017. "

4. The petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant with the respondent Corporation. In 2006, he was transferred to Shevgaon depot. It is his contention that, on 21.1.2017, he performed his duties in the second shift at the concerned workshop beginning at 5 p.m. and ending at 2 a.m. on 22.1.2017. After shift hours, while he was proceeding towards his house, he was arrested by the Police Authorities at 3 a.m. on the ground that an FIR was registered against him at Bhingar Police Station. He, was, therefore, suspended w.e.f. 23.1.2017 and was subsequently served with a charge sheet dated 27.1.2017, alleging therein that, he has committed a misconduct, which amounts to moral turpitude. After conclusion of the enquiry, he was served with the second show cause notice dated 29.3.2017, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service.

5. It is pertinent to note that, the Corporation has issued the charge sheet, only for the reason that, the petitioner was arrested and was in Police custody for more than 48 hours. His involvement in the alleged case of robbing a lady was published in Marathi Dainik Pudhari and this tarnished the image and reputation of the Corporation. The charge of theft and tarnishing the image of the Corporation, amounts to an act of moral turpitude.

6. The petitioner challenged the second show cause notice dated 29.3.2017 by preferring Complaint ULP. No.9/2017 under section 28(I) read with section 30(2), invoking item 1 of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. He was granted exparte ad Interim protection and he continued in employment. By order dated 5.10.2017, the Labour Court rejected the Application for Interim Relief Exhibit U-2. The petitioner approached the Industrial Court, by preferring a Revision ULP No.34/2017 under section 44 of the said Act. By the impugned order Exh.O5 dated 12.4.2005, the Application for interim relief was rejected.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that, while he was returning home on 21.1.2017, he, in fact, noticed that unknown persons had robbed a lady by name Pramila Mhatre. An amount of Rs. 24,000/- was snatched from her. As they were trying to get away, the petitioner intercepted the thieves and tried to catch hold of them. This created a commotion and out of mistaken identity, the petitioner was apprehended and believed to be one of the robbers for which, he was charged under section 392, IPC. His contention is that this incident has occurred outside the establishment premises and the said issue does not, in any way, relate to the working of the petitioner with the Corporation or the discipline of the Corporation. Merely because a news appeared in the news papers regarding the arrest of the petitioner, that the Corporation placed him under suspension, on account of being in Police custody beyond 48 hours. He was charge sheeted for an offence of causing damage to the image and reputation of the Corporation and that he had committed an act which amounted to moral turpitude.

8. Grievance of the petitioner is that, unless the criminal case was decided and the offence was proved against him, it cannot be concluded