As per case facts, the Petitioner, an RBI employee, was compulsorily retired from service on grounds of unauthorized absence from duty for an extended period. The Respondent RBI sent multiple ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
Kavita S.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15756 OF 2023
Animesh Bakuli ...Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India ...Respondent
----------
Mr. Animesh Bakuli, Petitioner in person present.
Mr. S.U, Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w Adv. Mr. Yashesh Kamdar, Mr.
Parag Sharma, Ms. Aditi Phatak, Ms. Megha More, Ms. Juhi Bhayani,
Mr. Parichehr i/b BLAC Co. for Respondent – RBI.
----------
CORAM :R.I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 23
rd
APRIL, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10
th
JUNE, 2026
JUDGMENT: (Per R.I. Chagla, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking the
quashing and setting aside of the Order dated 13
th
February, 2023
(“impugned Order”) issued by the General Manager and Competent
Authority, HRMD, Central Office of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”)
1/31
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV
Digitally signed
by KAVITA
SUSHIL JADHAV
Date: 2026.06.10
16:00:41 +0530
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
compulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service on ground of
unauthorized absence and a direction to the Respondent – RBI to
disburse payment and allowances, other concessions and
compensatory Allowances, which the Petitioner alleges have been
unethically blocked by the Respondent - RBI, Mumbai since
December, 2020 without notice.
2. The relevant facts are as under:
(i) The Petitioner was appointed on 28
th
January, 2013 on temporary basis as an Assistant (Class
III) by the Respondent – RBI. The Petitioner after
completion of six months, was appointed as a permanent
employee of the Respondent – RBI on 1
st
August, 2013.
Thereafter, the Petitioner was designated as Senior
Assistant on 31
st
January, 2018 i.e. upon completion of
five years with the Respondent – RBI. It is pertinent to
note that in the initial Appointment Letter dated 2
nd
November, 2012, it is stated: “
12. RBI (Staff)
Regulations, 1948:You should note that Chapter IV (copy
enclosed) of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 regarding
2/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
conduct, discipline and appeals subject to Awards and
Settlements under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will be
applicable to you from the date of your appointment.
”
(ii) The Petitioner had made multiple requests
to the Respondent – RBI asking for his transfer to
Kolkata. This was by way of Communications dated 10
th
March 2017, 25
th
April 2017, 19
th
June 2017 and 11
th
April, 2018.
(iii) The Respondent – RBI vide its
Communications dated 27
th
March, 2017 and 25
th
April,
2018 rejected the transfer request of the Petitioner.
(iv) The Petitioner remained absent from his
duties from 19
th
March, 2020 without permission of his
Reporting Officer and without intimation.
(v) The Respondent – RBI via multiple E-mails
and Letters dated 30
th
August 2020, 11
th
September
2020, 23
rd
September 2020, 24
th
September 2020, 4
th
November 2020, 23
rd
February 2021 and 18
th
June 2021
3/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
directed the Petitioner to report back to duty or submit a
Leave Application supported by Medical Certificate.
(vi) The Petitioner neither responded to the
multiple e-mails or letters nor submitted any reason for
his absence or any Leave Application supported by
Medical Certificate. More particularly the Petitioner did
not resume his duties during this period viz. 18
th
June,
2021 to 22
nd
July, 2022 without any reason, establishing
that he had no intention to resume his duties at the
Respondent – RBI and had effectively abandoned his
position.
(vii) The Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) dated 22
nd
July, 2022 was issued to the Petitioner under Regulation
47 of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (“the said
Regulations”). It is pertinent to note that the SCN was
sent to the Petitioner at all three addresses available with
the Respondent – RBI.
(viii) The Petitioner replied to the SCN on 26
th
July, 2022 stating that the Petitioner had forgotten his e-
4/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
mail password and was not able to access his e-mail; due
to Covid-19 Pandemic and Parents’ ill health, the
Petitioner was not able to return to his duties; and on 9
th
July 2022, the Petitioner returned back to Nashik
alongwith his parents.
(ix) In view of the Reply of the Petitioner to the
SCN not having been found satisfactory, Respondent –
RBI filed Charge Sheet bearing Reference Nos. S5226
(addressed to Kolkata), S5227 (addressed to Nashik) and
S5228 (addressed to Dahisar) on 4
th
August, 2022
against the Petitioner for committing breach under
Section 39(1) of the said Regulations. It is pertinent to
note that the Charge Sheet was bearing separate
reference numbers (outward numbers) on account of it
having been issued in triplicate to the three different
addresses of the Petitioner..
(x) The Charge Sheet No.S5227 was delivered
and received by the Petitioner at his Nashik address on
10
th
August, 2022.
5/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
(xi) The Petitioner submitted a Reply to the said
Charge Sheet on 19
th
August, 2022 denying all the
allegations.
(xii) The Respondent - RBI addressed a Letter
dated 26
th
August, 2022 stating that the Petitioner is
charged with having committed breach of Regulation
39(1) and for committing misconduct within the
meaning of Regulation 47 of the said Regulations and
directed the Petitioner to resume duty immediately
failing which ex-parte proceedings would follow.
(xiii) The Respondent – RBI informed the
Petitioner on 16
th
September, 2022 that Enquiry Officer
(“EO”) has been appointed to enquire into the charges
framed against the Petitioner and that the preliminary
enquiry was scheduled on 29
th
September, 2022 and the
Petitioner was called upon to remain present. The said
letter was sent to the Petitioner at all 3 addresses
available with the Respondent – RBI.
(xiv) The Disciplinary Enquiry meeting was held
6/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
on 29
th
September, 2022. However, the Petitioner failed
to appear in spite of having notice of the hearing.
(xv) A letter was addressed by the Respondent on
30
th
September, 2022 to the Petitioner stating that the
Petitioner had remained absent at the hearing held on
29
th
September, 2022 and that the preliminary hearing
will now be held on 7
th
October 2022, giving the
Petitioner another chance to present his case. This letter
was sent to the Petitioner at all three addresses available
with the Respondent – RBI.
(xvi) The Respondent – RBI sent multiple
WhatsApp messages i.e. on 30
th
September 2022, 6
th
October 2022, 7
th
October 2022, 10
th
October 2022, 19
th
October 2022, 20
th
October 2022 and 9
th
January 2023 to
the Petitioner informing him of the dates of hearing, and
forwarding the Enquiry Report.
(xvii) The Respondent – RBI attempted to contact
the Petitioner via Phone Call on 6
th
October, 2022.
7/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
(xviii) The Disciplinary Enquiry meeting was held
on 7
th
October 2022, however, the Petitioner failed to
appear at the meeting.
(xix) The Petitioner addressed a Letter dated 14
th
October, 2022 to the Respondent – RBI disputing receipt
of Charge Sheet Nos.S5226 and S5228.
(xx) A letter was addressed by the Respondent –
RBI to the Petitioner on 18
th
October, 2022 wherein it
was stated that the Petitioner had remained absent at the
hearings held on 29
th
September, 2022 and 7
th
October,
2022 and that the Preliminary hearing will now be held
on 10
th
November 2022, giving the Petitioner yet another
chance to present his case. The Respondent – RBI also
requested the Petitioner to confirm his availability, failing
which the Respondent – RBI will decide the proceedings
ex-parte. This letter was also sent to the Petitioner at all
three addresses available with the Respondent – RBI.
(xxi) The Petitioner visited the Respondent – RBI’s
office on 3
rd
November, 2022 in order to meet the Chief
8/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
General Manager in Charge (“CGM in Charge”)
regarding the proceedings.
(xxii) The Respondent – RBI issued a Letter dated
4
th
November, 2022 to the Petitioner clarifying that the
Charge Sheet Nos. S5226 and S5228 were exactly the
same as the one received by the Petitioner i.e. S5227.
The Charge Sheet No.S5226 (mentioned in the Hindi
translation of Departmental Enquiry Letter dated 16
th
September, 2022) and Charge Sheet No.S5226 are the
same.
(xxiii) The Disciplinary Enquiry meeting was held
on 10
th
November 2022, however, the Petitioner failed to
appear.
(xxiv) The Petitioner thus failed to remain present
on 29
th
September 2022, 7
th
October 2022 and 10
th
November 2022. The proceedings were held ex-parte in
terms of Section 15.1 of the Master Circular on Staff
Discipline dated 1
st
April, 2022. The Enquiry Report
dated 14
th
November, 2022 of the EO held that the
9/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
charges framed against the Petitioner dated 4
th
August,
2022 are established and proved. It was also recorded
therein that the Petitioner has committed an act of gross
misconduct and negligence of duty in availing leave
without prior intimation and permission from the office.
(xxv) The Enquiry Report and minutes in this
connection dated 14
th
November, 2022 was sent to the
Petitioner on 25
th
November, 2022.
(xxvi) The Petitioner submitted his Reply on 3
rd
December, 2022 to the Enquiry Report refuting the
finding of the Report.
(xxvii) The Petitioner again attempted meeting the
CGM in Charge on 7
th
December, 2022.
(xxviii) The Second SCN / Final SCN was issued by
the Respondent – RBI proposing penalty of compulsory
retirement as per Regulation 47(1)(e) of the said
Regulations. The Petitioner was directed to file his
response within nine days. It is pertinent to note that the
10/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
said SCN was sent to the Petitioner on all three addresses
available with the Respondent – RBI.
(xxix) The Respondent – RBI issued a Reminder
Letter to the Petitioner on 5
th
January, 2023 to file its
Reply within 7 days from the receipt of the said letter.
This letter was also sent to the Petitioner at all three
addresses available with the Respondent – RBI.
(xxx) A Circular was issued by the Respondent –
RBI on 12
th
January, 2023 under which ID cards of the
employees who are on unauthorized absence for more
than a month, were to be blocked immediately.
(xxxi) A final order was passed by the Competent
Authority on 31
st
January, 2023 (impugned Order)
imposing penalty of compulsory retirement (of the
Petitioner) as per Regulation 47(1)(e) of the said
Regulations.
(xxxii) The impugned Order was forwarded to the
Petitioner at all three addresses available with the
11/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
Respondent – RBI on 13
th
February, 2023.
(xxxiii) The Petitioner’s parents addressed a letter to
the Governor of the Respondent – RBI on 20
th
February,
2023 and 24
th
April, 2023 seeking intervention.
(xxxiv) The Petitioner informed the Respondent –
RBI about a complaint No.DEABD/P/2023/0000648
registered by the Petitioner on the CPGRAMS portal on
17
th
March, 2023.
(xxxv) The Petitioner on 25
th
March, 2023 denied
allegations regarding filing of the CPGRAMS complaint.
(xxxvi) The Petitioner was denied entry on 5
th
July,
2023 into the Respondent – RBI premises due to
deactivation of ID card as per the Circular dated 12
th
January, 2023.
(xxxvii) The Petitioner attempted to file an Appeal
on 2
nd
August, 2023 against the impugned Order under
Regulation 48, 49 and 50 of the said Regulations.
12/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
(xxxviii) The Respondent – RBI rejected the appeal
dated 2
nd
August, 2023 as the conditions mentioned in
Regulation 50 of the said Regulations were not complied
with. This was vide the Letter dated 18
th
December, 2023
sent to the Petition which had been returned with the
remark ‘Refused’.
(xxxix) The Respondent - RBI addressed an e-mail
on 21
st
February, 2024 forwarding the Letter dated 18
th
December, 2023
(xl) The present Writ Petition was filed on 16
th
October, 2023.
3. The Petitioner in person has made submissions in
support of the Writ Petition. He has submitted that the impugned
Order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
He has submitted that in fact the Departmental proceedings had been
proceeded and concluded contrary to the principles of Departmental
Enquiry. The Competent Authority of the Respondent – RBI by the
impugned Order has imposed the harsh penalty of compulsory
retirement on the Petitioner.
13/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
4. The Petitioner in person has further submitted that the
concluding of enquiry and passing of the impugned Order imposing
compulsory retirement without providing the Charge Sheet
Nos.S5226 and S5228 to the Petitioner amounts to gross miscarriage
of justice. He has submitted that the Competent Authority of the
Respondent – RBI in the passing of the impugned Order has
committed a breach of the said Regulations and in particular
Regulation 34 read with Regulation 47(1).
5. The Petitioner in person has submitted that the
Competent Authority has accepted the Enquiry Report without any
independent examination and / or application of mind to the various
letters addressed by the Petitioner in person which had expressly
stated that the Respondent – RBI had not complied with the
principles of natural justice in providing the Petitioner in person with
the Charge Sheet Nos. S5226 and S5228 and without provision of the
Charge Sheets, there has been a miscarriage of justice.
6. The Petitioner in person has submitted that the
Respondent – RBI had not disclosed the Standard Operating
Procedure (“SOP”) for RBI employees including the Petitioner during
14/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
the period of Covid-19 Pandemic which was the relevant period
during which the Petitioner remained absent. He has referred to the
Petitioner’s Letter dated 19
th
August, 2022 requesting the Respondent
– RBI to confirm if Regulation 39(1) of the said Regulations expressly
mentioned the SOPs to be followed during Covid-19 Pandemic. He
has submitted that there has been no response to the said Letter from
the Respondent – RBI.
7. The Petitioner in person has submitted that the SCN
dated 22
nd
July, 2022 has been issued by the Respondent – RBI after
23 months of non-payment of the dues and allowances and without
any notice and / or suspension of the Petitioner. He has submitted
that under Regulation 47(4), the Petitioner was required to be placed
under suspension by the Officer empowered to pass the final order
under Section 47(1) of the said Regulations. During such suspension,
the Petitioner was required to receive subsistence allowances which
were equal to his substantive pay plus 50% of the allowances thereon
for the first 6 months of the suspension and his substantive pay plus
75% of the allowances thereon for the period of suspension beyond 6
months.
15/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
8. The Petitioner in person has further submitted that the
Petitioner’s payment and allowance was immediately blocked in
September, 2022 without notice / suspension. It is only for the first
time in the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 23
rd
December, 2025 i.e. after the
span of 5 years and 3 months of blocking salary that the Respondent
– RBI has expressly relied upon Regulation 39(2) of the said
Regulations which allow the Respondent – RBI to block payment of
the Petitioner’s pay and allowances.
9. The Petitioner in person has submitted that he had in the
past made several transfer requests to Kolkata which were rejected
without giving any valid reason by the Respondent – RBI.
10. The Petitioner in person has submitted that the Appeal
filed by the Petitioner had been not entertained after 4 months by the
Respondent – RBI based on the conclusion that the Appeal cannot be
treated as an Appeal due to non-compliance of Regulation 50 of the
said Regulations. He has submitted that the Petitioner had
accordingly no choice but to file the present Writ Petition impugning
the order passed by the Competent Authority of the Respondent –
RBI.
16/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
11. The Petitioner in person has submitted that by the
impugned Order the Respondent – RBI has thrown the Petitioner out
of its service by an arbitrary decision which is unethical and
unconstitutional and has thereby forced the Petitioner and his parents
who are of advanced stage into financial distress and mental trauma.
12. The Petitioner in person has submitted that the
Respondent – RBI ought to have accepted the position that Charge
Sheet Nos. S5226 and S5228 were never served upon the Petitioner
and it is only Charge Sheet No.S5227 which had been served. This
was expressly pointed out to the Respondent – RBI and which
mistake had never been corrected though there is an admission that
different Charge Sheet No.S5226, S5227 and S5228 were sent to
different postal addresses having same content.
13. The Petitioner in person has accordingly submitted that
the impugned order requires to be set aside and the Petitioner is
entitled to payment and allowances, other concessions, which were
unethically blocked by the Respondent – RBI since December, 2020
without notice.
14. Mr. Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
17/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
Respondent – RBI has submitted that the Petitioner unauthorizedly
remained absent from his duties from 19
th
March, 2020 i.e. without
permission of his Reporting Officer, and without intimation. The
Respondent – RBI had addressed multiple e-mails and letters to the
Petitioner to report back to duty. The Petitioner failed to respond to
the same and / or submit any reason for his absence or any Leave
Application supported by Medical Certificate. It was by reason of
such conduct on the part of the Petitioner that the Respondent – RBI
was compelled to issue SCN on 22
nd
July, 2022 to the Petitioner under
Regulation 47 of the said Regulations.
15. Mr. Kamdar has placed reliance on Regulation 39(1) of
the said Regulations which provides that an employee shall not
absent himself from his duties without having first obtained the
permission of the Competent Authority. Further, under Regulation
39(2) an employee who absents himself from duties without leave or
overstays his leave, except under circumstances beyond his control
for which he must tender a satisfactory explanation, shall not be
entitled to draw any pay and allowances during such absence or
overstayal and shall further be liable to such disciplinary measures as
the Competent Authority may impose. He has submitted that the
18/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
disciplinary measures / penalty to be imposed for unauthorized
absence of the employee is under Regulation 47(1)(e) which provides
for compulsory retirement under the said Regulation (2A) of
Regulation 26. He has submitted that the appropriate penalty had
been imposed by the Respondent – RBI under the impugned Order.
The other measures could not be imposed, in view of the Petitioner
failing to report back to duty despite several intimations from the
Respondent – RBI.
16. Mr. Kamdar has submitted that the submission on behalf
of the Respondent – RBI that RBI should have placed the Petitioner
under suspension, is stated to be rejected. He has submitted that
there was no question of putting the Petitioner under suspension,
when the Petitioner himself had failed to report back to duty and / or
remained unauthorizedly absent. He has submitted that Regulation
47(4) can only apply when the employee was working with the
Respondent – RBI and not when he remained unauthorizedly absent.
17. Mr. Kamdar has placed reliance upon the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in Principal Secretary, Government of A.P. and
Others Vs. M. Adinarayana
1
. The Supreme Court has in the context
1
(2004) 12 SCC 579
19/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the well considered
order of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (“TDP”) has held
that such interference is unwarranted. The Administrative Tribunal
cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over a decision based on the finding
of enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court
has held that the Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings
of the Disciplinary Authority or the Tribunals. The truth or otherwise
of the charge is a matter for the Disciplinary Authority to go into.
The finding of the Court or Tribunal under judicial review cannot
extend to the re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness
of the charge. The Supreme Court has time and again, categorically
stated that the Court should not interfere with the quantum of
punishment where there is some relevant material which the
Disciplinary Authority had accepted and which material has
reasonable support for the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary
Tribunal.
18. Mr. Kamdar has submitted that the Petitioner in the
present case is seeking this Court in Writ jurisdiction to interfere with
the findings of the EO and which findings have been accepted by the
Competent Authority of the Respondent – RBI. Further, the penalty of
20/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
compulsory retirement is also not required to be interfered with,
particularly in the context in which it was imposed viz. unauthorized
absence of the employee of the Respondent – RBI which is an
undisputed position.
19. Mr. Kamdar has also placed reliance upon the Judgment
of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and
Others Vs. Om Parkash
2
. The Supreme Court has in a similar case as
the present, where the Respondent had abandoned his services
without informing his employer about his whereabouts, has held that
such conduct of the Respondent could not have been condoned by
the employer and therefore, treating the Respondent to have
abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in
terms of LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted. The Supreme Court
has accordingly set aside the impugned Order of the High Court
which had granted relief to the Respondent on the ground that the
termination order was passed without affording a reasonable
opportunity or conducting an inquiry into the charge of absence from
duty.
20. Mr. Kamdar has also placed reliance on the Judgment of
2
Civil Appeal No(s).4393/2010 - dated 13
th
November, 2024
21/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
the Supreme Court in General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of
India and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin
3
where the Supreme Court has
held that it is a well settled principle of law that gravity of
misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of
the misconduct. In that case, the Bank Officer holding the post of
Middle Management Officer, Grade II which was a responsible post
had absented himself unauthorizedly for about three years which was
undoubtedly detrimental to the public interest and hence, it could not
be said to be not grave misconduct which would warrant dismissal
from service.
21. Mr. Kamdar has submitted that in the present case as
well the Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent – RBI and
by unauthorizedly absenting himself for a similar period of time had
caused unauthorized detriment to the public interest and accordingly
the penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be harsh or
unwarranted.
22. Mr. Kamdar has submitted that the Petitioner has not
made out any case for interference with the impugned Order and that
the Petition requires to be dismissed.
3
(2006) 7 SCC 410
22/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
23. Having considered the submissions, the Petitioner in
person appears to have proceeded on the erroneous premise that
there were three independent Charge Sheets and Charge Sheet Nos.
S5226 and S5228 were not provided to the Petitioner which resulted
in gross miscarriage of justice. This premise of the Petitioner in
person is relied from the documents on record. The three different
reference numbers in the Charge Sheet viz. S5226, S5227 and S5228
are nothing but outward numbers in view of the Charge Sheet having
been sent in triplicate to the three different addresses of the
Petitioner which were available with the Respondent – RBI.
24. There has been no violation of the principles of natural
justice as several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to
remain present during the disciplinary proceedings as well as the
proceedings before the Competent Authority, who passed the
impugned Order. The only specious ground taken by the Petitioner
for not remaining present is that according to him he had not been
provided with all the Charge Sheets. This ground is misconceived as
there was only one Charge Sheet sent in triplicate to the Petitioner’s
three different addresses available with the Respondent – RBI.
23/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
25. The contention of the Petitioner in person that there had
been gross delay in issuance of the SCN and which was to the
detriment to the Petitioner is misconceived. It is pertinent to note
that the Petitioner had received multiple e-mails and letters from the
Respondent – RBI to report back to duty or submit Leave Application
supported by Medical Certificate. The Petitioner had remained
absent from duty from 19
th
March, 2020 without permission of his
Reporting Officer and / or without intimation. These multiple e-
mails and letters were addressed from 30
th
August, 2020 till 18
th
June, 2021 and had met with no response from the Petitioner. Thus
in view of the Petitioner remaining unauthorizedly absent, the
Respondent – RBI was left with no opportunity but to issue the SCN
on 22
nd
July, 2022 under Regulation 47 of the said Regulations by
placing reliance upon Regulation 39(1) and 39(2) of the said
Regulations.
26. The Petitioner in person has further contended that the
second SCN / Final SCN issued by the Respondent – RBI imposing the
penalty of compulsory retirement as per Regulation 47(1)(a) of the
said Regulations is harsh apart from being unwarranted and ought
not to have been issued. This submission in our view is also
24/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
unacceptable, particularly in view of the Petitioner’s conduct of
remaining unauthorizedly absent from the employment of the
Respondent – RBI in spite of several opportunities given to him to
report back to duty. Regulation 47(1) provides for the penalties to be
imposed. The appropriate penalty to be imposed for unauthorized
absence can only be Regulation 47(1)(e) viz. compulsory retirement
under sub Regulation 2(A) of Regulation 26. Further, the submission
of the Petitioner that he should have been placed under suspension
under Regulation 47(4) by the officer empowered to pass the final
order under Regulation 47(1) is misconceived particularly in view of
the fact that the Petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent and
hence, could not be suspended from the post which he did not report
back to.
27. It is the contention of the Petitioner in person that his
absence from the post held by him with the Respondent – RBI was on
account of Covid-19 and for which he had left Mumbai for Kolkata
where his parents permanently reside and this factor should have
been taken into account whilst passing the impugned Order. We find
this contention to be misconceived in view of the fact that the
Respondent – RBI had issued a Circular dated 1
st
July, 2020 by virtue
25/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
of which it was brought to the notice of various departments of the
Respondent – RBI that there would be resumption of operation in the
Central Office Departments by following safety protocols as detailed
in the Annexure to the said Circular. This was followed by Circulars
dated 1
st
July, 2020, 10
th
August, 2020, 21
st
August, 2020 and 9
th
October, 2020 to the similar effect. The Petitioner had also been paid
his salary till August 2020 which the Petitioner does not dispute. The
Respondent – RBI had issued multiple e-mails and letters directing
the Petitioner to report back to duty and the non response from the
Petitioner led to the issuance of SCN’s and passing of the impugned
Order.
28. The Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Om Parkash
(Supra), where the Respondent – Employee abandoned his service
without informing his employer about his whereabouts (similar to the
present case), has held that such conduct of the Respondent –
Employee cannot be condoned by the employer and the employer
was justified in treating the Respondent - Employee to have
abandoned his service and thereby terminated his service by issuing
the termination order. The Supreme Court held that the relief
granted by the High Court to the Respondent on the ground that the
26/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
termination order was passed without affording a reasonable
opportunity or conducting any enquiry into the charge of absence
from duty was erroneous and the impugned order has accordingly
been set aside and quashed.
29. The findings of fact arrived at by the EO which have
been accepted by the Competent Authority of the Respondent – RBI
cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the
present case, the Petitioner had unauthorizedly absented himself
from his duty with the Respondent – RBI. This has led to the passing
of the impugned Order compulsory retiring the Petitioner on ground
of unauthorized absence.
30. The Supreme Court in Principal Secretary, Government
of A.P. Vs. M. Adinarayana (Supra) has held that findings of the
Disciplinary Authority ought not to be interfered with. The truth or
otherwise of the charge is a matter of the Disciplinary Authority to go
into. The Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of Appeal
over a decision based on finding of the EO in disciplinary proceeding.
Here also the Petitioner has sought for this Court in writ jurisdiction
to sit as a Court of Appeal over the finding of the EO which is
27/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
impermissible.
31. In the other Judgment which has been relied upon by Mr.
Kamdar for Respondent – RBI viz. General Manager, Appellate
Authority, Bank of India Vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin (Supra), the Supreme
Court has noted the well settled principle of law that the gravity of
misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of
the misconduct. In that case, the Bank Officer holding the post of
Middle Management Officer, Grade II which was a responsible post
had absented himself unauthorizedly for about three years. This was
held to be undoubtedly detrimental to the public interest and cannot
be said to be not a grave misconduct which would warrant dismissal
from service. In the present case, the Petitioner occupied the post of
Senior Assistant of the Respondent – RBI having completed five years
of service the Respondent – RBI and would undoubtedly be
occupying a responsible post from which he has unauthorizedly
absented himself for a similar period of time. Hence, as held by the
Supreme Court, such unauthorized absence would undoubtedly be
detrimental to the public interest and said to be a grave misconduct
which would warrant dismissal from service.
28/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
32. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the Supreme
Court decision in State of Punjab Vs. Jit Singh
4
. The Supreme Court
held that in an inquiry with regard to charge of unauthorized absence
from duty, if established in departmental proceedings, the
punishment to be inflicted lies with the Disciplinary Authority. The
Court cannot substitute its own opinion to the punishment so
imposed, unless, it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court.
33. In the given case, none of these exceptions would apply
insofar as the impugned Order of compulsory retirement of the
Petitioner. Therefore, there is no interference warranted, in the given
factual complexion.
34. We may gainfully refer to another recent decision of the
Supreme Court in Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
5
The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:-
“6. ….The scope for judicial review of an order of
compulsory retirement based on the subjective
satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and
restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary
42009 16 SCC 351
5(2020) 1 SCC 801
29/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
or capricious grounds, vitiated by malafides,
overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited
scope for interference. The court, in judicial review,
cannot sit in judgment over the same as an appellate
authority. Principles of natural justice have no
application in a case of compulsory retirement.”
35. A perusal of the above clearly indicates that the
aforementioned decision would squarely apply in the given facts and
this Court in judicial review ought not to sit in judgment over the
same as an Appellate Authority and that the principles of natural
justice would have no application in a case of compulsory retirement.
36. The Petitioner in person has referred to several requests
made by him for transfer to Kolkata where his parents permanently
reside. These representations of the Petitioner to the Respondent –
RBI apart from being prior in point of time, does not justify his
unauthorized absence from the post occupied by him with the
Respondent – RBI. In the present circumstance, the impugned Order
compulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service does not suffer from
any infirmity.
30/31
RJ-WP 15756.2023.doc
37. We accordingly find no merit in the present Petition and
hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
[ ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA, J. ]
31/31
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....