Supreme Court Upholds Termination of LIC Employee for Abandoning Service
The case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Om Parkash revolves around the termination of an employee who was dismissed on grounds of unauthorized absence and abandonment of service. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated November 13, 2024, upheld the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to terminate the respondent, setting aside the previous ruling of the High Court that had reinstated him.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Om Parkash, was an Assistant Administrative Officer at LIC. On September 25, 1995, he went on unauthorized leave without informing his employer. Despite multiple notices issued by LIC directing him to resume duty, he failed to respond. On February 14, 1996, LIC issued a chargesheet-cum-show cause notice proposing his removal from service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.
The respondent neither replied to the charges nor resumed duty. Subsequently, LIC invoked the deemed abandonment clause under Regulation 39(4)(iii) and removed him from service on June 25, 1996. The respondent appealed this decision, but the appellate authority rejected his plea in August 1997.
Om Parkash then filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which ruled in his favor, setting aside his termination on the grounds of procedural lapses and lack of proper inquiry. LIC challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether LIC’s invocation of the abandonment clause under Regulation 39(4)(iii) was justified.
- Whether the respondent was given sufficient opportunity to respond to the notices and show cause order.
- Whether the High Court erred in reinstating the respondent despite clear evidence of unauthorized absence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
LIC contended that:
- The respondent was absent without leave for more than 90 days, constituting abandonment under Regulation 39(4)(iii).
- LIC had issued multiple notices directing him to report back to duty, but he failed to respond.
- The disciplinary action was taken strictly as per the LIC Staff Regulations.
- The respondent had secured alternate employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on April 14, 1997, proving his intent to abandon service.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, Om Parkash, argued that:
- He was not given a fair opportunity to present his case before termination.
- The termination was procedurally flawed as no proper inquiry was conducted.
- The High Court was correct in granting him relief since he had not officially resigned.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the facts and made the following key observations:
1. Justification of Abandonment
The Court noted that the respondent had failed to report for duty despite being given multiple opportunities. The judgment stated:
“The respondent absented himself for over 90 days without intimation, attracting the provisions of Regulation 39(4)(iii). The employer was justified in invoking the abandonment clause.”
2. Importance of Serving Notices
The Court examined the service of notices and found that LIC had sent multiple letters to the respondent’s last known address. The judgment emphasized:
“The employer took reasonable steps to notify the respondent about his unauthorized absence. The respondent’s failure to respond cannot be attributed to LIC.”
3. Concealment of Alternative Employment
The Court observed that the respondent had taken up a job at FCI while pursuing litigation against LIC without disclosing this fact to the High Court. The judgment pointed out:
“The respondent’s employment with FCI was a crucial factor that he failed to disclose in the writ petition. This conduct disentitles him from any equitable relief.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of LIC and held:
- The respondent had abandoned his service by remaining absent for over 90 days without leave.
- The termination order under Regulation 39(4)(iii) was legally justified.
- The High Court erred in reinstating the respondent, overlooking key facts such as his employment with FCI.
- The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order was set aside.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for employment law, particularly in cases of unauthorized absence and abandonment:
- Employers can invoke abandonment clauses when employees fail to report for duty without valid reasons.
- Failure to respond to multiple notices may be construed as an intention to abandon service.
- Courts must carefully scrutinize employee conduct, including undisclosed employment, before granting relief.
By upholding LIC’s decision, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that employees must comply with service regulations and cannot claim unfair dismissal when they voluntarily abandon their posts.
Petitioner Name: Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors..Respondent Name: Om Parkash.Judgment By: Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.Judgment Date: 12-11-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: life-insurance-corpo-vs-om-parkash-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-11-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in Judgment by S.V.N. Bhatti
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
