Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reinstatement of an LIC officer. It held that the employer had rightly treated his unexplained absence for over ninety days as abandonment of service under the LIC Staff Regulations. It also held that he had hidden his later employment with the Food Corporation of India from the High Court and so was not entitled to equitable relief under Article 226.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was right to set aside the removal of the respondent for want of an inquiry and a reasonable opportunity, when the employer treated his absence as abandonment of service.
- Whether the respondent, who concealed his subsequent employment with the Food Corporation of India in his writ petition, was entitled to relief under Article 226.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 39(4)(iii) with Explanations 1 and 2, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960An employee who absents himself without leave, or overstays leave, for a continuous ninety days without written intimation is deemed to have abandoned his post, and the disciplinary authority may pass such orders as it thinks fit. The Court held that the respondent had been absent from 25.09.1995 and had not answered repeated notices sent to his permanent address. One notice came back with a postal remark that he had left his job and gone. On these facts, treating him as having abandoned service and removing him could not be faulted. (¶¶ 3, 4, 9, 12)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe respondent did not disclose in his writ petition that he had taken employment with the Food Corporation of India before filing it. The Court held that a petitioner guilty of such suppression is disentitled to equitable relief in writ jurisdiction. (¶¶ 10, 12)
Held
- Where an employee stays away from duty without leave for more than ninety days, does not tell the employer where he is, and ignores notices to resume duty, the employer may treat it as abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulations. The High Court erred in setting aside the removal only because no inquiry had been held and no opportunity given, since it overlooked that this was a case of abandonment. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13)
- The respondent concealed in his writ petition that he had secured employment with the Food Corporation of India before filing it. That fact strongly showed that he had abandoned his LIC job. Because of this suppression he was disentitled to equitable relief under Article 226. (¶¶ 10, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh were set aside and the respondent's removal from service was restored; parties to bear their own costs.