Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had set aside the termination of the respondent, Om Parkash, an Assistant Administrative Officer. The respondent had absented himself from duty from 25 September 1995 without any intimation. LIC sent three notices to his permanent address on 6 October 1995, 6 November 1995, and 19 December 1995, all of which remained unanswered. The postal endorsement on the second notice stated that on enquiry it was learnt that the consignee had left his job and gone away. Consequently, a chargesheet-cum-show cause notice was issued on 14 February 1996 proposing removal from service, which also went unanswered. The disciplinary authority, invoking Regulation 39(4)(iii) read with Explanation 1 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, treated the absence as abandonment of service and ordered removal from service on 25 June 1996. The respondent's appeal to the appellate authority was rejected on 19 August 1997. Meanwhile, the respondent secured employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on 14 April 1997. He filed a writ petition before the High Court on 5 January 1998 challenging his termination, but concealed the fact of his employment with FCI. The learned Single Judge set aside the termination on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the respondent, and the Division Bench upheld this decision. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondent's conduct clearly indicated abandonment of service. The Court noted that the respondent failed to respond to any of the notices, his whereabouts were unknown for over 90 days, and he subsequently joined FCI without informing LIC. The Court held that the employer rightly treated it as a case of abandonment and that conducting an inquiry was impossible due to the respondent's unavailability. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the respondent's suppression of the fact of his employment with FCI in the writ petition disentitled him to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in granting relief and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Abandonment of Service - Regulation 39(4)(iii) Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 - Termination for Absence Without Leave - The respondent, an Assistant Administrative Officer, absented from duty from 25.09.1995 without intimation. Notices sent to his permanent address remained unanswered; postal endorsement indicated he had left job and gone. After 90 days, the disciplinary authority treated it as abandonment and ordered removal. The Supreme Court held that the employer rightly invoked Regulation 39(4)(iii) as the delinquent's conduct showed abandonment, and conducting an inquiry was impossible due to his unavailability. (Paras 3-5, 7.3, 12) B) Equitable Jurisdiction - Suppression of Facts - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Disentitlement to Relief - The respondent secured employment with the Food Corporation of India on 14.04.1997 but concealed this fact in his writ petition filed on 05.01.1998. The Supreme Court held that such suppression disentitled him to equitable relief under Article 226, and the High Court erred in granting relief without considering this vital aspect. (Paras 10, 12) C) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Abandonment of Service Cases - The High Court set aside the termination for want of opportunity, but the Supreme Court reversed, noting that the respondent failed to respond to multiple notices and his whereabouts were unknown, making inquiry impossible. The employer's action under Regulation 39(4)(iii) was valid as it does not require a full-fledged inquiry when the employee abandons service. (Paras 7.3, 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent by setting aside the termination order passed under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960, on the ground of no opportunity being given, when the respondent had abandoned service and suppressed the fact of subsequent employment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and upheld the termination of the respondent. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Abandonment of service
- Natural justice
- Equitable relief
- Suppression of facts
- Regulation 39(4)(iii) LIC Staff Regulations
- 1960
