Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by an RBI employee challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed against him on the ground of unauthorised absence.
The Court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, as the employee had been given several opportunities to appear in the disciplinary proceedings but failed to do so. The Court further held that the employee’s argument that three different charge-sheets had been issued was misconceived, since the different reference numbers were only outward numbers for the same charge-sheet sent to three different addresses.
The Court refused to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Competent Authority, holding that in writ jurisdiction the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over departmental disciplinary findings.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Facts
The petitioner, Animesh Bakuli, was appointed by the Reserve Bank of India on 28 January 2013 as an Assistant on temporary basis. He became a permanent employee on 1 August 2013 and was later designated as Senior Assistant on 31 January 2018.
His appointment letter stated that Chapter IV of the RBI Staff Regulations, 1948, relating to conduct, discipline and appeals, would apply to him.
The petitioner had made several requests for transfer to Kolkata through communications dated 10 March 2017, 25 April 2017, 19 June 2017 and 11 April 2018. RBI rejected the transfer requests by communications dated 27 March 2017 and 25 April 2018.
The petitioner remained absent from duty from 19 March 2020 without permission of his Reporting Officer and without intimation.
RBI issued several emails and letters dated 30 August 2020, 11 September 2020, 23 September 2020, 24 September 2020, 4 November 2020, 23 February 2021 and 18 June 2021, directing him either to report back to duty or submit a leave application supported by a medical certificate.
The petitioner did not respond to those communications, did not submit any leave application supported by medical certificate, and did not resume duty.
RBI then issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22 July 2022 under Regulation 47 of the RBI Staff Regulations, 1948. The notice was sent to all three addresses available with RBI.
The petitioner replied on 26 July 2022, stating that he had forgotten his email password, could not access his email, and could not return to duty due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the ill health of his parents. He also stated that he had returned to Nashik with his parents on 9 July 2022.
RBI found the reply unsatisfactory and issued a charge-sheet dated 4 August 2022, bearing reference numbers S5226, S5227 and S5228. The Court recorded that these were not three separate charge-sheets, but the same charge-sheet sent in triplicate to the petitioner’s Kolkata, Nashik and Dahisar addresses.
The petitioner received Charge-Sheet No. S5227 at his Nashik address on 10 August 2022 and submitted his reply on 19 August 2022 denying the allegations.
RBI directed the petitioner to resume duty immediately, failing which ex parte proceedings would follow.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed, and the petitioner was informed that the preliminary enquiry would be held on 29 September 2022. The petitioner did not appear.
The enquiry was then rescheduled to 7 October 2022, and thereafter to 10 November 2022. Despite repeated letters and WhatsApp messages informing him of the dates, the petitioner again failed to appear.
The proceedings were therefore conducted ex parte. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 14 November 2022 holding that the charges were established and proved. The report also recorded that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct and negligence of duty by availing leave without prior intimation or permission.
The report was sent to the petitioner on 25 November 2022. The petitioner replied on 3 December 2022, disputing the findings.
RBI then issued a final show cause notice proposing the penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulation 47(1)(e). A reminder was also sent on 5 January 2023.
The Competent Authority passed the final penalty order on 31 January 2023 imposing compulsory retirement. The order was forwarded to the petitioner on 13 February 2023.
The petitioner later attempted to file an appeal on 2 August 2023, but RBI rejected it on the ground that it did not comply with Regulation 50 of the RBI Staff Regulations. The writ petition was filed on 16 October 2023.
Issues
- Whether the compulsory retirement order passed against the petitioner for unauthorised absence was illegal or arbitrary.
- Whether RBI violated the principles of natural justice during the disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner was prejudiced because Charge-Sheet Nos. S5226 and S5228 were allegedly not served upon him.
- Whether the petitioner’s absence during the Covid-19 period justified interference with the disciplinary penalty.
- Whether the Court, in writ jurisdiction, could interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the penalty imposed by the Competent Authority.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner appeared in person and argued that the compulsory retirement order was passed in violation of natural justice.
He contended that the departmental proceedings were conducted and concluded contrary to the principles governing disciplinary enquiry.
He argued that the penalty of compulsory retirement was harsh and disproportionate.
The petitioner’s main argument was that he was not provided Charge-Sheet Nos. S5226 and S5228, and therefore the disciplinary proceedings suffered from gross procedural illegality and miscarriage of justice.
He also argued that the Competent Authority accepted the Enquiry Officer’s report without independent application of mind.
The petitioner further submitted that RBI had not disclosed the Standard Operating Procedure applicable to RBI employees during the Covid-19 pandemic, which was the period during which he remained absent.
He also argued that the show cause notice was issued after 23 months of non-payment of dues and allowances, and that RBI had blocked his salary without placing him under suspension.
According to the petitioner, under Regulation 47(4), RBI ought to have placed him under suspension and paid subsistence allowance.
He also submitted that his previous transfer requests to Kolkata were rejected without valid reasons.
Lastly, he claimed that the compulsory retirement order was arbitrary, unethical and unconstitutional, and had caused financial distress and mental trauma to him and his elderly parents.
Respondent’s Arguments
RBI argued that the petitioner had remained absent from duty from 19 March 2020 without permission and without intimation.
RBI submitted that multiple emails and letters were sent to the petitioner directing him to report back to duty or submit a leave application supported by a medical certificate, but he failed to respond.
RBI relied on Regulation 39(1) of the RBI Staff Regulations, which requires an employee not to absent himself from duty without first obtaining permission of the Competent Authority.
RBI also relied on Regulation 39(2), which provides that an employee who absents himself without leave or overstays leave, except in circumstances beyond his control for which a satisfactory explanation is tendered, shall not be entitled to pay and allowances during such absence and shall also be liable to disciplinary measures.
RBI submitted that Regulation 47(1)(e) permits compulsory retirement as a penalty.
RBI argued that the petitioner could not claim that he should have been suspended, because he had not reported back to duty and had remained unauthorisedly absent. According to RBI, Regulation 47(4) relating to suspension applies when an employee is working and not when the employee himself has abandoned duty.
RBI further argued that the petitioner had been given several opportunities during the enquiry, but he failed to appear on 29 September 2022, 7 October 2022 and 10 November 2022.
RBI also clarified that S5226, S5227 and S5228 were not three separate charge-sheets, but the same charge-sheet sent to three different addresses.
Analysis
The High Court held that the petitioner proceeded on an erroneous premise that there were three independent charge-sheets.
The Court found that the three reference numbers, S5226, S5227 and S5228, were merely outward numbers because the same charge-sheet was sent in triplicate to the petitioner’s three addresses available with RBI.
Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that non-supply of Charge-Sheet Nos. S5226 and S5228 caused miscarriage of justice was rejected.
The Court held that there was no violation of natural justice because several opportunities were given to the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner failed to attend despite notice of the hearings.
The Court also rejected the contention that there was gross delay in issuing the show cause notice. RBI had issued multiple emails and letters from 30 August 2020 to 18 June 2021 asking the petitioner to report back or submit leave documents, but those communications went unanswered.
The Court held that RBI had no option but to issue the show cause notice dated 22 July 2022 under Regulation 47, relying on Regulations 39(1) and 39(2).
The petitioner’s Covid-19 explanation was also rejected. The Court noted that RBI had issued circulars regarding resumption of operations in Central Office Departments with safety protocols, including circulars dated 1 July 2020, 10 August 2020, 21 August 2020 and 9 October 2020.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had been paid salary till August 2020, which he did not dispute.
The Court held that the petitioner could not claim that he should have been suspended under Regulation 47(4), because he had remained unauthorisedly absent and could not be suspended from a post to which he had not reported back.
Precedent
The Court relied upon the following Supreme Court judgments:
The Supreme Court held that a Court or Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings. The truth or otherwise of the charge is for the disciplinary authority to examine. Judicial review does not permit re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the charge.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Parkash, Civil Appeal No. 4393 of 2010, decided on 13 November 2024
The Supreme Court held that where an employee abandons service without informing the employer about his whereabouts, such conduct cannot be condoned, and the employer is justified in treating the employee as having abandoned service and taking action in terms of the service regulations.
- General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India v. Mohd. Nizamuddin, (2006) 7 SCC 410
The Supreme Court held that the gravity of misconduct must be measured in terms of the nature of misconduct. Unauthorised absence by a bank officer for about three years was held to be grave misconduct detrimental to public interest.
- State of Punjab v. Jit Singh, (2009) 16 SCC 351
The Supreme Court held that once unauthorised absence is established in departmental proceedings, the punishment lies with the Disciplinary Authority. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion unless the punishment is illogical, procedurally improper, or shocks the conscience of the Court.
- Ram Murti Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 1 SCC 801
The Supreme Court held that the scope of judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the employer’s subjective satisfaction is extremely narrow. Interference is permissible only where the order is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, or overlooks relevant material.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the petitioner had remained absent from duty from 19 March 2020 without permission or intimation.
Despite multiple opportunities, he neither reported back to work nor submitted a leave application supported by medical certificate.
The disciplinary enquiry was conducted after several notices were sent to him. He failed to remain present at three hearings.
The Court found that the ex parte enquiry was justified because the petitioner was repeatedly informed but did not participate.
The Court also held that the petitioner’s claim regarding non-service of two charge-sheets was misconceived because there was only one charge-sheet, sent to three addresses with three outward reference numbers.
The Court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, accepted by the Competent Authority, could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
The Court further held that unauthorised absence from a responsible post in RBI was serious misconduct and detrimental to public interest.
The penalty of compulsory retirement did not shock the conscience of the Court and did not suffer from procedural impropriety.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from RBI service.
The Court held that long unauthorised absence, failure to respond to repeated communications, failure to submit leave documents, and failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings justified RBI’s action.
The Court also held that there was no violation of natural justice and no infirmity in the disciplinary process.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that employees cannot remain absent for long periods without permission and later claim protection on the ground of natural justice when they were repeatedly given opportunities to respond and participate.
It also clarifies that in disciplinary matters, writ courts will not re-appreciate evidence like appellate courts.
The judgment is significant for service law because it confirms that unauthorised absence, especially in public institutions like RBI, may amount to grave misconduct warranting compulsory retirement or similar disciplinary action.
The ruling also makes it clear that procedural objections will not succeed where the employee had actual notice, was given repeated opportunities, and failed to participate in the enquiry.