In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that employers are within their rights to treat prolonged and uninformed absences by employees as abandonment of service, provided due process is followed. The court overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision that had reinstated an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) after his termination for such absence.
Case Background
The dispute revolved around Om Parkash, an Assistant Administrative Officer with LIC, who went on unauthorized leave starting September 25, 1995. Despite repeated notices from LIC, he failed to rejoin duty or provide any explanation for his absence. On June 25, 1996, LIC terminated his service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, which permits action for abandonment after 90 days of continuous absence without intimation.
Parkash challenged the dismissal in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which ruled in his favor, citing procedural lapses by LIC in conducting an inquiry before termination. The Division Bench upheld this ruling, prompting LIC to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The key legal issues in the case were:
1. Interpretation of Abandonment of Service: Whether prolonged and uninformed absence constitutes abandonment, justifying termination without a formal inquiry.
2. Service of Notices: Whether LIC fulfilled its obligation to notify the employee about the impending disciplinary action.
3. Equitable Relief: Whether the employee, who allegedly suppressed facts about subsequent employment, was entitled to reinstatement under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, noted that LIC had made multiple attempts to serve notices to Om Parkash. These notices, sent to his permanent address, were returned with postal remarks indicating he had abandoned his job and left the location.
Importantly, the court observed that Parkash had joined the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in April 1997 but concealed this fact while filing his writ petition in January 1998. This, the court held, was a material suppression of facts, disentitling him to equitable relief.
Justice Roy, writing for the bench, stated, “An employee guilty of suppression of material facts, such as securing alternate employment, cannot seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Employers are justified in treating prolonged and uninformed absence as abandonment of service under applicable regulations.”
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court upheld LIC’s decision to terminate Parkash’s employment. The bench emphasized that employers are not obligated to conduct a full inquiry in cases of abandonment where the employee’s whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts.
Parties and Representation
– Appellants (LIC and Ors.): Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Kailash Vasudev, assisted by Ms. Ekta Choudhary.
– Respondent (Om Parkash): Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta as Amicus Curiae, assisted by Mr. Kunal Chatterjee.
