Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs Om Parkash (Supreme Court of India)
Termination of employment justified as employee remained absent for longtime without intimating employer: SC
Supreme Court held that employee remaining absent from duty for 90 days without intimating employer and employee not responding to notice addressed to delinquent justifies employer action of terminating employee by treating as abandonment of service.
Facts- The challenge here to the judgment and order dated 26.06.2008 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh where under, 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 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.
The disciplinary authority while ordering removal from service of the respondent through the order dated 25.06.1996 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.
