Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of Life Insurance Corporation to remove an employee from service for remaining absent from duties without any intimation by treating his case as that of abandonment of job.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti set aside and quashed the Himachal Pradesh High Court's single as well as division bench orders of 2003 and 2008 respectively, which had held the termination of the respondent, Om Prakash by LIC on June 25, 1996 as unsustainable on the ground of not providing due opportunity to the delinquent. 

The court noted the respondent employee had secured a job with the Food Corporation of India and concealed this fact in writ petition filed before the High Court.

In the case, the order of removal by the authorities noted that the delinquent employee failed to respond to the notices issued to him. Moreover, his whereabouts were not known for over 90 days, as specified in the LIC Staff Regulation. The respondent who was serving as an Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC, since September 25, 1995, absented himself from duties without informing his employer. 

The LIC’s letters addressed to him to resume duties remained unanswered by the delinquent. Then the chargesheet-cum-show cause notice was issued on February 14, 1996, proposing his removal from service. But it was also not answered.

The Authority therefore considered it to be a case of abandonment of service and by invocation of powers under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 ordered his removal.

Upon a writ petition filed by the employee, the High Court, however, set aside the penalty of removal from service granting all consequential benefits to the delinquent. 

In its plea, the LIC contended that they had taken all steps to serve notice on the delinquent who had not been found since September 25, 1995, and therefore treated it to be a case of abandonment of service. The termination of service was accordingly ordered, under Regulation 39(4)(iii), it said.

The LIC also submitted that around that period, the respondent secured employment as AG-III Depot in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on April 14, 1997 and although this was an important indication of abandonment of service by the respondent, he failed to disclose the same in the writ petition, which subsequently came to be filed before the High Court on January 05, 1998.

It further submitted that the respondent was absent from duty for 90 days without intimation to his employer and since the notices addressed to the delinquent remained unanswered, conducting an inquiry into the charge of unauthorised absence was an impossibility. Therefore, the employer had rightly treated it to be a case of abandonment of service and terminated the respondent.

Before the apex court too, the respondent remained unrepresented despite service of the notice.

A senior counsel, requested to assist the court on his behalf adverted to the circumstances under which the respondent’s services were dispensed with by the appellant, and pointed out that service of notice as claimed by the appellant may have to be treated with caution as the concerned notices were sent to different addresses.

On this aspect, the court noted  that it was discernible that three notices were sent to the permanent address. In response to the second notice, it was mentioned that on enquiry it was found that the consignee had left the job and gone. 

"Importantly, the respondent secured employment with the FCI on April 14, 1997 and although his writ petition was filed six months after securing the new job, the employment with the FCI was concealed. If this vital aspect was known the High Court possibly would have taken a different view and the respondent abandoning his job with the LIC, could have been easily inferred," the bench said.

However, in the case, the bench noted that relief was granted to the respondent by the High Court on the ground that the termination order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity or conducting an inquiry into the charge of absence from duty. But in granting such relief, the court overlooked that it was a case of the respondent abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts. Subsequently, it came to light that he joined the FCI on May 09, 1997.

"Such conduct of the respondent could not have been condoned by the employer and therefore, in our assessment, treating the respondent to have abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted. It is also necessary for us to say that as the delinquent was guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with the FCI, he was disentitled to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The apex court thus held that the High Court in its assessment, erred in granting relief to the respondent by allowing the writ petition and accordingly set aside and quashed the orders.

Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Vs Om Prakash