Supreme Court Supports Dismissal of LIC Worker for Hiding Job with Another Company.
The Supreme Court accepted an appeal from the Life Insurance Corporation of India regarding a service issue. It ruled that the employee in question could not receive fair relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution because he had hidden his employment with the Food Corporation of India. The High Court was reviewing a Civil Appeal that challenged a decision from the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had upheld a previous ruling by a Single Judge. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N Bhatti, overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the court failed to recognize that the respondent had abandoned his job without notifying his employer of his location.
Senior Advocate Kailash Vasudev represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta represented the Respondent. The contested High Court ruling declared the termination of the respondent, who worked as an Assistant Administrative Officer, invalid because he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. The Single Judge annulled the removal penalty and granted the respondent all related benefits. However, the Court noted that the employers could still conduct an inquiry based on the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, and take appropriate action. In deciding to remove the respondent from service, the disciplinary authority viewed his absence as a case of service abandonment under Regulation 39(4)(iii) along with Explanation 1 of the LIC Staff Regulation.
The lawyer for the appellant disputed the High Court’s decision that favored the delinquent. They highlighted that the delinquent did not respond to any of the notices, leading the authorities to use Regulation 39 (1)(f) to remove him from his job. It was noted that during this time, the respondent got a job as AG-III Depot at the Food Corporation of India (FCI). This was a clear sign that he had abandoned his previous job, but he did not mention it in his Writ Petition to the High Court. The Bench observed that three notices sent to his permanent address were returned undelivered. Additionally, the respondent started working at the FCI in 1997, yet he filed his Writ Petition six months later without revealing this new employment. The Bench remarked that if this crucial information had been disclosed, the High Court might have reached a different conclusion regarding the respondent’s abandonment of his job with LIC.
The Bench stated that given the respondent’s employment with FCI starting in 1997, his actions could not be overlooked by the employer. Therefore, they concluded that treating him as having abandoned his service and taking action according to LIC Staff Regulation was justified. They also mentioned that since the respondent hid his employment with FCI, he was not entitled to fair relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Bench overturned the High Court’s order and approved 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
