Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1037
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Om Parkash - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).4393 Of 2010
Decided On : 13-11-2024
For the Appellants : Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Divyank Dutt Dwivedi, Adv., Ms. Jeba Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
A delinquent who is guilty of suppression of fact is disentitled to equitable relief from High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution.
Headnote:
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 – Regulation 39(4)(iii) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Removal from service – Reversal by High Court – Relief was granted to respondent by High Court on the ground that termination order was passed without affording reasonable opportunity or conducting enquiry into charge of absence from duty – In granting such relief, Court overlooked that it was a case of respondent abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts – Such conduct of respondent could not have been condoned by employer, treating respondent to have abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in terms of LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted – As delinquent was guilty of suppression of fact of his employment with FCI, he was disentitled to equitable relief from High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution – Impugned order set aside and quashed. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Challenge here to judgment and order dated 26.06.2008 in LPA No.6/2003 of High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder, judgment of Single Judge dated 21.05.2003 was upheld by Division Bench. Through said judgment, termination of respondent ordered by appellant(s) on 25.06.1996 was found to be unsustainable on the ground of not providing due opportunity to the delinquent. Single Judge set aside penalty of removal from service granting all consequential benefits to delinquent.
Findings of Court:
High Court erred in granting relief to respondent by allowing Writ Petition. Impugned order accordingly set aside and quashed. Appeal stands allowed leaving parties to bear their own cost.
Result : Writ Petition allowed.
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:-
“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 p
