LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.versusOM PARKASH

                [2024] 11 S.C.R. 2369 : 2024 INSC 870

            Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
                               v.
                           Om Parkash
                     (Civil Appeal No(s). 4393 of 2010)
                             13 November 2024
              [Hrishikesh Roy* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by
       setting aside his termination for abandonment of service despite
       the employee's failure to disclose his subsequent employment
       and the procedural compliance by the employer under Regulation
       39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations, 1960.

                                 Headnotes†
       Regulation 39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Abandonment
       of Service – The regulation deems an employee to have
       abandoned service if absent for 90 consecutive days without
       intimation – Employee absented himself without informing the
       employer, and notices were issued to his recorded address –
       The High Court overlooked the Respondent's abandonment
       of service and suppressed subsequent employment. [Para 11]
       Constitution of India – Article 226 – Equitable Relief – Relief
       under Article 226 is equitable and requires the petitioner to
       approach the court with clean hands – Employee, during the
       pendency of the dispute, secured employment with the Food
       Corporation of India (FCI) but concealed this fact from the
       court and employer – Suppression of subsequent employment
       disentitled the employee to equitable relief [Paras 10, 12].
       Service of Notice – Procedural compliance under Regulation
       39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Regulation 39(4)
       (iii) permits service of notices by registered post to the
       employee’s address in the service record, with deemed
       service if undelivered and affixed on the office notice board –



* Author
2370                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Notices sent to the employee’s permanent address, with
    postal remarks indicating he had left his job and residence –
    Satisfied procedural requirements – Held that the employer’s
    actions complied with the regulation, and the employee’s
    non-response justified the abandonment finding – The High
    Court’s doubt on notice service was misplaced. [Paras 9, 11]
    Held: The High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by
    allowing the Writ Petition and setting aside the termination order, as
    it overlooked that "it was a case of the employee abandoning his
    services without informing his employer about his whereabouts" –
    Treating the employee to have abandoned his service and taking
    appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation,
    cannot be faulted, given his absence since 25.09.1995, unanswered
    notices, and subsequent employment with the Food Corporation
    of India on 14.04.1997 – The employee’s suppression of this
    employment in his Writ Petition filed on 05.01.1998 disentitled
    him to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers
    under Article 226 of the Constitution – Accordingly, the impugned
    order is set aside and quashed [Paras 8-13].

                                List of Acts
    Constitution of India; LIC Staff Regulations, 1960.

                             List of Keywords
    Abandonment of service; Unauthorized absence; Equitable relief;
    Suppression of facts.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4393
    of 2010
    From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2008 of the High Court
    of H.P at Shimla in LPA No. 6 of 2003

                        Appearances for Parties
    Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Divyank Dutt
    Dwivedi, Ms. Jeba Khan, Advs. for the Appellants.
    Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Kunal Chatterjee, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                    2371

       Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Order

     Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1.   Heard Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
     the appellant(s). Also heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Amicus
     Curiae assisted by Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, learned counsel for the
     respondent.
2.   The challenge here to the judgment and order dated 26.06.2008 in the
     LPA No.6/2003 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder, the
     judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2003 was upheld
     by the Division Bench. Through the said judgment, the termination of
     the respondent ordered by the appellant(s) on 25.06.1996 was found
     to be unsustainable on the ground of not providing due opportunity
     to the delinquent. The learned Single Judge set aside the penalty
     of removal from service granting all consequential benefits to the
     delinquent. The Court however observed that the employers were
     at liberty to proceed to conduct inquiry on the charges in terms of
     the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 (for
     short “LIC Staff Regulation”, and take necessary action.
3.   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. The order notes that the
     delinquent failed to respond to the notice(s) issued to him. Moreover
     his whereabouts were not known for over 90 days, as specified in
     the LIC Staff Regulation. The respondent who was serving as an
     Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC, since 25.9.1995 absented
     himself from duties without informing his employer. The LIC’s letters
     addressed to him to resume duties remained unanswered by the
     delinquent. Then the chargesheet-cum-show cause notice was issued
     on 14.02.1996 proposing his removal from service. But the same
     was also not answered.
4.   The Authority therefore considered it to be a case of abandonment
     of service and by invocation of powers under Regulation 39(4)(iii)
     ordered from removal of the delinquent. The relevant part of the
     Regulation reads as under:-
2372                                                     [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          “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.
          Explanations: 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 continous period of ninety days without any
          intimation therefore in writing.
          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.”
5.   Assailing the judgment of the High Court granting relief to the
     delinquent, Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned Senior Counsel would
     point out that notice(s) were issued on 06.10.1995, 06.11.1995
     and 19.12.1995 to the respondent prior to the chargesheet-cum-
     show cause notice on 14.02.1996. In those, the delinquent was
     informed about his unauthorized absence from office with effect from
     25.09.1995 and requiring him to rejoin services immediately or action
     would be taken against him under the LIC Staff Regulation. This was
     followed by chargesheet-cum-show cause notice which reflected
     the endorsement of the Postal Authorities to the communication
     dated 06.11.1995 to the effect that on enquiry it was learnt that the
     respondent had abandoned his job and left his place of residence.
     As all the notice(s) remained unanswered by the delinquent, the
     authorities invoked the powers under Regulation 39 (1)(f) and ordered
     delinquent’s removal from service.
6.   When the appeal of the delinquent was rejected by the Appellate
     Authority through order dated 19.08.1997, the respondent filed the
     writ petition resulting in the impugned orders of the Single Judge
     and Division Bench of the High Court.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         2373

       Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash


7.1 Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned Senior Counsel would firstly submit that
    the appellant(s) had taken all steps to serve notice on the delinquent
    who was not to be found since 25.09.1995 and therefore treated it
    to be a case of abandonment of service. The termination of service
    was accordingly ordered, under the Regulation 39(4)(iii).
7.2 It is next pointed out that around that period, the respondent secured
    employment as AG-III Depot in the Food Corporation of India (FCI)
    on 14.04.1997 and although this was an important indication of
    abandonment of service by the respondent, he failed to disclose the
    same in the Writ Petition No.41 of 1998, which subsequently came
    to be filed before the High Court on 05.01.1998.
7.3 The Senior Counsel submits that the respondent absented from
    duty for 90 days without intimation to his employer and since
    the notice(s) addressed to the delinquent remained unanswered,
    conducting an inquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence was
    an impossibility. Therefore, the employer had rightly treated it to be
    a case of abandonment of service and terminated the respondent.
8.   The respondent despite notice, was un-represented and accordingly
     Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel was requested to assist
     the Court. Mr. Gupta adverts to the circumstances under which the
     respondent’s services were dispensed with by the appellant(s) and
     points out that service of notice as claimed by the appellant(s), may
     have to be treated with caution as the concerned notice(s) were sent
     to different addresses.
9.   On the above aspect, it is discernible that three notice(s) were sent
     to the permanent address. In response to the second notice dated
     06.11.1995 which returned back to the appellant(s), the postal remarks
     in Hindi reads as under:
          “pata karne par pata chala hai ki praptkarta kahin se naukari
          chodkar chala gaya hai. R.L. wapas ki jati hai” [English
          Translation: on enquiry it has come to know that the
          consignee has left job and gone. R.L is returned herewith]”
10. Importantly, the respondent secured employment with the FCI on
    14.04.1997 and although his Writ Petition was filed six months after
    securing the new job, the employment with the FCI was concealed
    in the Writ Petition. If this vital aspect was known the High Court
2374                                                               [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports



     possibly would have taken a different view and the respondent
     abandoning his job with the LIC, could have been easily inferred.
11. 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. Subsequently, it came to light
    that he joined the FCI on 09.05.1997.
12. 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.
13. 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.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)