Regulation 39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Abandonment of Service – The regulation deems an employee to have abandoned service if absent for 90 consecutive days without intimation – Employee absented himself without informing the employer, and notices were issued to his recorded address – The High Court overlooked the Respondent's abandonment of service and suppressed subsequent employment. [Para 11] Constitution of India – Article 226 – Equitable Relief – Relief under Article 226 is equitable and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands – Employee, during the pendency of the dispute, secured employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) but concealed this fact from the court and employer – Suppression of subsequent employment disentitled the employee to equitable relief [Paras 10, 12]. Service of Notice – Procedural compliance under Regulation 39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Regulation 39(4)
(iii) permits service of notices by registered post to the employee’s address in the service record, with deemed service if undelivered and affixed on the office notice board – Notices sent to the employee’s permanent address, with postal remarks indicating he had left his job and residence – Satisfied procedural requirements – Held that the employer’s actions complied with the regulation, and the employee’s non-response justified the abandonment finding – The High Court’s doubt on notice service was misplaced. [Paras 9, 11] Held: The High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by allowing the Writ Petition and setting aside the termination order, as it overlooked that "it was a case of the employee abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts" – Treating the employee to have abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted, given his absence since 25.09.1995, unanswered notices, and subsequent employment with the Food Corporation of India on 14.04.1997 – The employee’s suppression of this employment in his Writ Petition filed on 05.01.1998 disentitled him to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution – Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and quashed [Paras 8-13].
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.