Acts and Sections Discussed:

• LIC Staff Regulation, 1960: Regulation 39(4)(iii) and Explanations 1 and 2.
• Constitution of India: Article 226 (Equitable relief).

1. Parties and Representation

• Appellants: Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).
• Respondent: Om Parkash, a former Assistant Administrative Officer at LIC.
• Counsels:
  • Mr. Kailash Vasudev (Appellant)
  • Mr. Jaideep Gupta (Amicus Curiae)

2. Background

• High Court's Judgment:
  • Single Judge and Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court found LIC's termination of the respondent on 25.06.1996 unsustainable due to lack of opportunity.
  • Ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits, with the liberty to re-conduct an inquiry.

3. LIC's Termination Decision

• Facts:

  • Respondent absented from duty since 25.09.1995 without intimation.
  • LIC issued multiple notices (06.10.1995, 06.11.1995, 19.12.1995) which were unanswered.
  • Chargesheet issued on 14.02.1996 for abandonment under Regulation 39(4)(iii).

• Regulatory Provision:

  • Regulation 39(4)(iii): An employee absent for 90 days without intimation is deemed to have abandoned their service.

4. Respondent's Concealment of Employment

• Secured alternate employment with Food Corporation of India (FCI) on 14.04.1997 but concealed this in his writ petition filed on 05.01.1998.

5. High Court’s Relief and Its Flaws

• Relief was granted due to lack of a formal inquiry.
• The Court overlooked the abandonment of duty and subsequent employment with FCI.

6. Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

• Opportunity to Respond:

  • Notices were issued to all known addresses.
  • Postal remarks indicated the respondent had left the job and relocated.

• Abandonment of Service:

  • Non-response to multiple notices, absence exceeding 90 days, and securing alternate employment proved abandonment.

• Equitable Relief:

  • Concealment of material facts (employment at FCI) disqualifies the respondent from receiving equitable relief under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi

• Key Principle:
  In cases of prolonged unauthorized absence and evident abandonment of service, procedural fairness in conducting inquiries can be limited when the employee evades communication and facts confirm abandonment.

Subjects:

• #EmploymentLaw
• #ServiceTermination
• #AbandonmentOf Service