Apparently, there is no nexus between HR's employment in her present job with her action of bailing out her husband for his alleged criminal act. Therefore, her employer has no locus standi to proceed against her for an unconnected act of her husband which cannot form any valid basis.
However, question needs to be asked to the lady HR whether she would have acted in the similar manner had her husband committed same act while employed with the same organization as hers.
Therefore, one gets the impression that the HR lady has compromised on her professional values in bailing out not once but twice her husband's alleged criminal act.
Lady HR's act of guarantor for bail for her husband is something her personal activity outside her employer's work place. Employer may not be able to terminate her particularly on this basis. However if you pass on information to her employer her credibility as a HR will become a question mark with her employer This will have some impact in the form of moral fear.
On the other side as theft took place twice please realign your security arrangements and bring in rigid security systems and procedures.
The proposed move suggested by your top brass seems to have risen under the premise of vicarious liability of the said lady HR working elsewhere pertaining to bail her husband out in the early stage of the criminal trial against him for theft.
Normally, criminal law stays away from the doctrine of vicarious liability in the case of a person who is in no way connected with the criminal act of the other person unless criminal liability can be fixed on him under criminal conspiracy or abetment in the offence.
Being the spouse of the person charged with the crime of theft and impersonation, it is natural for a wife to stand guarantor in a bail petition. Simply put it is legal right and moral commitment just arising out of her matrimonial relationship with the accused. That cannot be construed either as an act of criminal conspiracy or abetment in the alleged crime.
Therefore, apart from the question of your management's locus standi to make such a request to another employer to terminate the services of his employee not at all connected with the crime committed in your premises by her husband for exercising her legal right to bail out her husband, I am doubtful whether such a request would be considered at all by the other employer.
It is a moot point whether telecom company should write to the lady HR's employer for taking action against her for bailing out her husband allegedly involved in the theft. Getting bail is legal right and that does not mean her husband is acquitted. It is part of the whole legal process.
In my view there is no cause for any action let alone lady HR's termination at this stage and her employer should take prudent view legally and morally.
Above notwithstanding, I reiterate my earlier view that the lady HR has compromised on her professional values in supporting her husband's yet unproved acts of theft.
Secondly the wife and her husband doesn't work on the same organization.
Releasing her husband on bail is her personal choice, company shouldn't be concerned about this.
So, as per my analysis, there are no background for which she should be terminated by her employer.
If you wish to know more about any other labour laws contact me @8356832404