Under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, can removal for abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) be set aside for want of an inquiry where the employee absented himself for ninety days, his whereabouts were not known and every notice remained unanswered?

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 — Regulation 39(4)(iii) — Explanation 1 — Abandonment of service — Unauthorized absence — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Suppression — Equitable relief —

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 — Regulation 39(4)(iii) — Abandonment of service —

Held: Where an employee absents himself for ninety days, his whereabouts are not known and every notice remains unanswered, conducting an inquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence is an impossibility; treating the case as abandonment of service cannot be faulted. (¶12)

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Suppression of subsequent employment —

Held further: A delinquent guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with another employer, secured before and concealed in his writ petition, is disentitled to equitable relief under Article 226. (¶10, 12)

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Relief granted on overlooked material —

Held further: Relief granted for want of a reasonable opportunity, while overlooking that the employee had abandoned his services without informing the employer of his whereabouts, is erroneous. Appeal allowed. (¶11, 13)

Under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, can removal for abandonment of service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) be set aside for want of an inquiry where the employee absented himself for ninety days, his whereabouts were not known and every notice remained unanswered?

No. In those circumstances conducting an inquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence was an impossibility. Explanation 1 deems an employee to have abandoned his post if he absents himself from duty without leave for ninety days without any intimation therefore in writing, and the disciplinary authority treating it as abandonment of service and ordering removal cannot be faulted. [¶4, ¶12]

Where a writ petitioner concealed from the High Court that he had secured fresh employment months before filing the petition, is he entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution?

No. A delinquent guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with another employer is disentitled to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226. Had that vital aspect been known, the High Court possibly would have taken a different view, and the abandoning of the earlier job could have been easily inferred. [¶10, ¶12]

Can relief be granted to a removed employee on the ground that no reasonable opportunity or inquiry preceded the order, where the record shows he had abandoned his services without informing the employer of his whereabouts?

No. In granting relief on that ground the Court overlooked that it was a case of the employee abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts, and that he had joined another employer soon after. Such conduct could not have been condoned by the employer. [¶11, ¶12]

Under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, how may a communication be served on an employee who cannot be found at the address in his service record?

Explanation 2 to Regulation 39(4) provides that communications and copies of orders may be delivered personally where the employee is attending office, and otherwise sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record. Where they cannot be served personally or by registered post, copies affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed are deemed to have been properly served. [¶4]

What did the Supreme Court finally decide in this appeal?

The High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent by allowing the writ petition. The impugned order was set aside and quashed and the appeal allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. [¶13]

“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 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.”

“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.””