Suppression Of Fact Of Employment With Other Organization: Supreme Court Upholds Termination Of LIC Employee

The High Court was considering a Civil Appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereunder, the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench.

The Division Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N Bhatti quashed the High Court’s order and held, “... the Court overlooked that it was a case of the respondent abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts.”

Senior Advocate Kailash Vasudev represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta represented the Respondent.

Through the impugned HC judgment, the termination of the respondent, who was serving as an Assistant Administrative Officer, ordered by the appellants in the year 1996 was declared unsustainable on the ground of not providing due opportunity to the delinquent. The 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 and take necessary action. While ordering removal from service of the respondent the disciplinary authority 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 Counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court granting relief to the delinquent and pointed out that when all the notices remained unanswered by the delinquent, the authorities invoked the powers under Regulation 39 (1)(f) and ordered delinquent’s removal from service. It was brought to the Court’s attention that around that period, the respondent secured employment as AG-III Depot in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and although this was an important indication of abandonment of service by the respondent, he failed to disclose the same in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court.

The Bench took note of the fact that 3 notices were sent to the permanent address which returned back to the appellants. Moreover, the respondent secured employment with the FCI in 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”, it added.

Considering the fact that he joined the FCI in the year 1997, the Bench said, “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.”

The Bench further noted, “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.”

Setting aside the order of the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India v. Om Prakash [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 870]

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Kailash Vasudev, Ekta Choudhary, AOR Divyank Dutt Dwivedi, Advocate Jeba Khan

Respondents: Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Advocate Kunal Chatterjee

Click here to read/download Order