Superior not guilty if employee kills self due to workload: Supreme Court

In an unusual ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that if an employee takes the extreme step of ending his or her life due to excessive workload, his superior cannot be charged with abetment of suicide.

The apex court rejected the argument put forth by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court that the boss or superior should be held responsible for the situation that they create for the junior, even if it is not on purpose.

The Supreme Court ruled that in this case, the superior cannot be adjudged a 'criminal' simply because he or she assigned a lot of work to an employee.

The issue came to light when a Maharashtra government employee Kishor Parashar killed himself in August 2017.

Parashar's wife filed an FIR with the police saying that her husband succumbed to excessive pressure from his superior, who allegedly forced him to stay in office beyond his official hours and on holidays.

She also alleged that her husband's salary had been stopped and that his superior threatened to not increase his pay.

Parashar's senior at the office of the deputy director of education in Aurangabad had filed a petition with the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR, but it was rejected.

The High Court had then observed that although the applicant did not intend for his junior to kill himself, if a situation is created that leads to mental stress and tension, because of which an employee takes his or her own life, the senior can be accused of instigating the suicide.

Parashar's senior then appealed to the Supreme Court, where he was represented by Maharashtra government's Standing Counsel Nishant Katneswarkar.  A bench comprising Arun Mishra and UU Lalit revoked the High Court ruling and quashed the FIR.

"It is true that if a situation is created deliberately so as 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 the present case are inadequate and insufficient (to reach that conclusion)," Justice Lalit observed.