Employers Can Take Action Against Absent Employees Who Do Not Inform Their Whereabouts Treating It As Abandonment Of Service: SC
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India justified the termination of an LIC employee from service who abandoned his services without informing the employer about his whereabouts. The bench was hearing a challenge to the Himachal Pradesh High Court order which stated, “...the termination of the respondent ordered by the appellant(s) (LIC) 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.” However, the Court observed, “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 as per the June 25, 1996 order, 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 order noted 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. In this case, the respondent was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC. Since September 25, 1995, the respondent absented himself from duties without informing his employer. The LIC’s letters addressed to him to resume duties remained unanswered by the delinquent.
On February 02, 1996, the chargesheet-cum-show cause notice was issued proposing his removal from service, but the same was also not answered. Therefore the Authority 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. Against the decision of the disciplinary authority, the respondent filed the writ petition before the High Court which resulted in the aforementioned orders.
During the Supreme Court’s hearing, Mr. Kailash Vasudev, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted, “...the appellant(s) had taken all steps to serve notice on the delinquent who was not to be found since 25.09.1995 and therefore treated it to be a case of abandonment of service. The termination of service was accordingly ordered, under the Regulation 39(4)(iii).” He further added, “The respondent absented from duty for 90 days without intimation to his employer and since the notice(s) addressed to the delinquent remained unanswered, conducting an inquiry into the charge of unauthorized absence was an impossibility. Therefore, the employer had rightly treated it to be a case of abandonment of service and terminated the respondent.”
After hearing the contentions, the SC bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti opined, “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.” Therefore, the bench concluded, “With the above conclusion, the High Court in our assessment, erred in granting relief to the respondent by allowing the Writ Petition. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and quashed. With this, the appeal stands allowed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.”
