Supreme Court Upholds Termination for Abandonment of Service: LIC vs. Om Parkash (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2024. Citation: 2024 INSC 870. Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Can an employer terminate an employee’s service for prolonged unauthorized absence without conducting a formal inquiry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and one of its employees. The core issue was whether the LIC was justified in terminating the employee’s service for abandoning his post without prior intimation. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, ruled in favor of the LIC, setting aside the High Court’s order.

Case Background

The respondent, Om Parkash, was employed as an Assistant Administrative Officer at the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). On 25 September 1995, he absented himself from duty without informing his employer. The LIC sent several letters to him, asking him to resume his duties, but received no response. Consequently, the LIC issued a chargesheet-cum-show cause notice on 14 February 1996, proposing his removal from service. This notice also went unanswered.

The LIC, considering the respondent’s prolonged absence and lack of response, treated it as a case of abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 (LIC Staff Regulation). The respondent was consequently removed from service on 25 June 1996. The respondent’s appeal against the removal was rejected on 19 August 1997.

The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the termination order. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, setting aside the termination order and directing the LIC to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. The High Court, however, allowed the LIC to conduct a fresh inquiry. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, after his removal from service, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the penalty of removal from service, granting all consequential benefits to the respondent. However, the court also allowed the employer to conduct an inquiry on the charges. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960. This regulation deals with the abandonment of service by an employee. The relevant part of the regulation states:

“39 (4) (iii) Where an employee has abandoned his post, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit.”

Explanation 1 of the same regulation defines abandonment:

“Explanation 1. For the purpose of this regulation, an employee shall be deemed to have abandoned his post if he absents himself from duty without leave or overstays his leave for a continuous period of ninety days without any intimation therefore in writing.”

Explanation 2 of the same regulation deals with the service of notice:

“2. All communications under this regulation and copies of orders passed there under may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending office; otherwise they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record. Where such communications or copies of orders cannot be served on him personally or by registered post, copies thereof shall be affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed, and on such affixing such communications and orders shall be deemed to have been properly served on him.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (LIC):

• The LIC argued that the respondent had abandoned his service by remaining absent for more than 90 days without any intimation, thus falling under the ambit of Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulation.
• The LIC contended that they had issued multiple notices to the respondent at his permanent address, informing him of his unauthorized absence and requiring him to rejoin.
• The LIC submitted that the postal authorities’ endorsement on the communication dated 06.11.1995, stating that the respondent had abandoned his job and left his place of residence, further supported their claim of abandonment of service.
• The LIC argued that the respondent’s subsequent employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on 14 April 1997, which he concealed in his writ petition, was a strong indication of his abandonment of service.
• The LIC contended that conducting an inquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence was impossible as the respondent’s whereabouts were unknown.

Arguments by the Respondent (represented by Amicus Curiae):

• The respondent’s counsel argued that the service of notice by the appellant should be treated with caution, as the notices were sent to different addresses.
• The respondent’s counsel highlighted that the termination order was passed without affording the respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard or conducting an inquiry into the charge of absence from duty.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the termination of the respondent’s service by the appellant was justified given the respondent’s absence from duty without intimation and the provisions of Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960* to conclude that the respondent’s absence for more than 90 days without intimation constituted abandonment of service. The Court also referred to Explanation 1 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960* to define what constitutes abandonment of post, i.e., absence for a continuous period of 90 days without intimation. The Court referred to Explanation 2 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960* to determine the procedure for service of notice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the respondent’s prolonged unauthorized absence, which was deemed as abandonment of service under the LIC Staff Regulations. The Court also considered the fact that the respondent had secured employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and concealed this fact in his writ petition. This suppression of material fact was a significant factor in the Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s order.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the High Court’s view that a reasonable opportunity should have been given to the respondent and an inquiry should have been conducted. However, the Supreme Court rejected this view, stating that the respondent’s conduct of abandoning his service and concealing his subsequent employment with FCI disentitled him to equitable relief. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s actions justified the employer’s decision to terminate his services.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent by allowing the Writ Petition. The Court stated that the respondent was guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with the FCI, and therefore, he was not entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the termination order passed by the LIC.

“The disciplinary authority while ordering removal from service of the respondent through the order dated 25.06.1996 (Annexure P-1) considered the absence from duty by the respondent to be a case of abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) read with Explanation 1 of the LIC Staff Regulation.”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• An employee’s absence from duty for a continuous period of 90 days without intimation can be considered abandonment of service under the LIC Staff Regulations.
• Employers are justified in terminating the services of employees who abandon their posts without prior intimation.
• Suppression of material facts, such as subsequent employment, can disentitle an employee from equitable relief in writ proceedings.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that an employer is not always obligated to conduct a formal inquiry when an employee abandons service.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee’s absence from duty for a continuous period of 90 days without intimation can be considered abandonment of service, justifying termination without a formal inquiry. This decision clarifies the interpretation of Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations and emphasizes that employees cannot claim equitable relief if they have suppressed material facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Om Parkash upholds the termination of an employee who absented himself from duty for more than 90 days without intimation. The Court emphasized that such absence constitutes abandonment of service under the LIC Staff Regulations. The Court also highlighted that the concealment of subsequent employment by the employee disentitled him from equitable relief. This judgment reinforces the employer’s right to take action against employees who abandon their posts and suppress material facts.