Supreme Court Ruling on Accountability in Employee Suicide Cases
The Supreme Court has ruled that a superior cannot be held accountable if an employee commits suicide due to an excessive workload. This ruling emerged when a government employee from Maharashtra named Kishor Parashar ended his life in August 2017. Allegedly, Parashar was forced to work outside regular hours and on holidays.
Rejecting the argument made by Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench that the accused superior officer should be held responsible as their actions, even if unintentional, could lead to such an extreme decision, the apex court ruled that a superior cannot be deemed a criminal for assigning a significant amount of work to an employee.
Parashar's wife lodged a police complaint, alleging that her husband's superior officer at the office of the deputy director of education in Aurangabad put excessive pressure on him, leading to extended office hours. Moreover, she claimed that Parashar's salary was withheld, and the senior officer threatened to halt his pay increment.
The Aurangabad police registered an FIR based on the wife's complaint, leading the senior officer to seek the quashing of the FIR at the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. On January 23, the High Court rejected the plea to quash the FIR, citing the lack of direct abetment and the applicants' lack of intent for the deceased to commit suicide.
Unperturbed by the High Court ruling, the senior officer escalated the matter to the Supreme Court where the Maharashtra government's standing counsel, Nishant Katneswarkar, argued against the plea. The Supreme Court bench comprising Arun Mishra and U U Lalit termed the High Court's rationale as untenable and quashed the FIR.
Justice Lalit, while delivering the judgment, stated, "It is true that if a situation is deliberately created to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide). However, the facts on record in this case are inadequate and insufficient (to reach that conclusion)." Consequently, the bench quashed the FIR against the superior officer.
Reference: [Financial Express]( https://www.financialexpress.com/ind...court/1221785/ ). Prakash Pathare.
From India, Patna
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
The Supreme Court has ruled that a superior cannot be held accountable if an employee commits suicide due to an excessive workload. This ruling emerged when a government employee from Maharashtra named Kishor Parashar ended his life in August 2017. Allegedly, Parashar was forced to work outside regular hours and on holidays.
Rejecting the argument made by Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench that the accused superior officer should be held responsible as their actions, even if unintentional, could lead to such an extreme decision, the apex court ruled that a superior cannot be deemed a criminal for assigning a significant amount of work to an employee.
Parashar's wife lodged a police complaint, alleging that her husband's superior officer at the office of the deputy director of education in Aurangabad put excessive pressure on him, leading to extended office hours. Moreover, she claimed that Parashar's salary was withheld, and the senior officer threatened to halt his pay increment.
The Aurangabad police registered an FIR based on the wife's complaint, leading the senior officer to seek the quashing of the FIR at the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. On January 23, the High Court rejected the plea to quash the FIR, citing the lack of direct abetment and the applicants' lack of intent for the deceased to commit suicide.
Unperturbed by the High Court ruling, the senior officer escalated the matter to the Supreme Court where the Maharashtra government's standing counsel, Nishant Katneswarkar, argued against the plea. The Supreme Court bench comprising Arun Mishra and U U Lalit termed the High Court's rationale as untenable and quashed the FIR.
Justice Lalit, while delivering the judgment, stated, "It is true that if a situation is deliberately created to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide). However, the facts on record in this case are inadequate and insufficient (to reach that conclusion)." Consequently, the bench quashed the FIR against the superior officer.
Reference: [Financial Express]( https://www.financialexpress.com/ind...court/1221785/ ). Prakash Pathare.
From India, Patna
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide as “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable with such imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Ingredients of the offence
Firstly, the deceased should have committed suicide.
Secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to commit such an act.
Thirdly, the alleged involvement of the accused should be direct in nature.
There are many such cases agitated in various courts. But as far as HR people or any employee is concerned, they should aim to approach work in an even-handed manner and not to press any matter to the extent that an employee may commit suicide. Harassment of an employee just because you have power is an issue that can create problems if the affected employee commits suicide.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
3180Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide as “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable with such imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Ingredients of the offence
Firstly, the deceased should have committed suicide.
Secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to commit such an act.
Thirdly, the alleged involvement of the accused should be direct in nature.
There are many such cases agitated in various courts. But as far as HR people or any employee is concerned, they should aim to approach work in an even-handed manner and not to press any matter to the extent that an employee may commit suicide. Harassment of an employee just because you have power is an issue that can create problems if the affected employee commits suicide.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
LEGAL IMPACT ON PF - INTERNATIONAL WORKERSppt.pdf
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg