When Absent Employee Doesn't Inform Whereabouts, Employer Can Treat It As Abandonment Of Service & Take Action : Supreme Court

In a recent case, the Supreme Court justified the termination of the service of an LIC employee who failed to communicate the whereabouts of his absence from duty under the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960.

The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti allowed the LIC's appeal against the High Court's decision directing reinstatement of the respondent employee who remained absent from the duties and didn't reply to the notices sent by the LIC on several occasions.

Also, the Court upheld the employer's right to terminate the employee for abandonment of service, provided the employer makes reasonable attempts to communicate with the employee about his absence from duty.

The respondent-employee served as an Assistant Administrative Officer at LIC. He absented himself from duties from September 25, 1995, without providing any intimation. LIC sent notices dated October 6, 1995, November 6, 1995, and December 19, 1995, directing the respondent to resume duties, but these notices were not responded to.

Following this, the respondent was terminated from service by the LIC's Disciplinary Authority for abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960.

The appellant-LIC argued that wilful absence from the duties without intimation within 90 days prescribed under LIC Staff Regulation justified LIC's action to terminate the respondent for abandonment of duty.

Contrarily, the respondent opposed the appellant's decision to abandon service, contending that the LIC failed to hold an inquiry and didn't provide him with an opportunity before abandoning his service.

The High Court set aside the termination because the respondent was not afforded an inquiry or reasonable opportunity. It directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. Following this, the LIC approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court upheld LIC's action against the respondent. It noted that the respondent's prolonged absence, lack of communication, and concealment of alternative employment justified LIC's action under Regulation 39(4)(iii).

Also, the Court found the respondent-employee guilty of concealing the material facts by not informing them about his joining the new employment at the Food Corporation of India.

“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 order written by Justice Roy said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in the following terms:

“With the above conclusion, the High Court in our assessment, erred in granting relief to the respondent by allowing the Writ Petition. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and quashed. With this, the appeal stands allowed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.”

Appearance:

Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Senior Counsel for the appellant(s)

Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Counsel for the respondent.

Case Title: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS OM PARKASH, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).4393/2010

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 899

Click here to read/download the order