An RBI employee, Animesh Bakuli, approached the Bombay High Court challenging the Reserve Bank of India’s February 2023 order that compulsorily retired him from service. He also sought payment of salary and allowances that had been withheld since December 2020.
Bakuli had joined the RBI in 2013 and was promoted as a Senior Assistant in January 2018. He had requested a transfer to Kolkata on several occasions so that he could stay with his parents, but the RBI did not approve his requests.
What Happened in the Case?
According to the RBI, Bakuli remained absent from duty without permission from March 2020 onwards. The bank repeatedly asked him to either resume work or submit a leave application supported by a medical certificate. However, he allegedly did not respond to these communications.
The RBI later issued a show-cause notice and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for violating service rules. The bank stated that Bakuli neither replied to the notice nor participated in the departmental enquiry. Following the enquiry, the RBI imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement.
Bakuli argued before the High Court that he had travelled to Kolkata during the COVID-19 pandemic to stay with his parents and could not return to Mumbai for work. He also claimed that the punishment was excessive and that the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice because he was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself.
What Did the Bombay High Court Say?
A division bench of Justices R. I. Chagla and Advait Sethna examined the matter and found no merit in Bakuli’s challenge.
The court observed that Bakuli was holding a responsible position as a Senior Assistant in the RBI and had remained absent from work without authorisation for a prolonged period. It noted that several opportunities were provided to him to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, but he failed to avail them.
The bench further noted that the RBI had resumed work in its Central Office Departments in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic while following necessary safety protocols.
Court Order
The Bombay High Court held that unauthorised absence from duty by an RBI employee is detrimental to public interest and amounts to grave misconduct. The court found that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the RBI had followed the prescribed procedure.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Bakuli’s petition and upheld the RBI’s decision to compulsorily retire him from service, stating that the punishment did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
