Unauthorised absence by RBI official misconduct, says HC; upholds his removal
Unauthorised absence from work by a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) official would be detrimental to the public interest and amount to grave misconduct, the Bombay High Court has said, refusing relief to an employee who was removed from service.
The petitioner, Animesh Bakuli, was a senior assistant with the RBI and would undoubtedly be occupying a responsible post from which he was unauthorisedly absent for a long period, a bench of Justices RI Chagla and Advait Sethna noted in the order passed on June 10.
“Such unauthorised absence would undoubtedly be detrimental to the public interest and a grave misconduct which would warrant dismissal from service,” the court said.
Dismissing Bakuli’s plea, it said the RBI’s decision compulsorily retiring him from service does not suffer from any infirmity.
Bakuli had sought that the HC quash the RBI’s February 2023 order compulsorily retiring him from service on the ground of unauthorised absence. He also demanded a direction to the Reserve Bank to disburse payment and other allowances blocked it since December 2020 without notice.
The petitioner was employed with the RBI from 2013 and was designated as a senior assistant since January 2018.
Bakuli had on several occasions sought that the RBI transfer him to Kolkata so that he could live with his parents. The Reserve Bank rejected his requests.
From March 2020, Bakuli remained absent from his duties without permission from his superiors. The RBI sent repeated communications to Bakuli directing him to either report back to duty or submit a leave application supported by a medical certificate. However, he did not respond.
The RBI then issued him a show-cause notice and initiated an enquiry against him for committing breach and misconduct of rules and regulations governing the apex bank.
As per the RBI, Bakuli failed to reply to the notice and also did not appear for the enquiry meetings to present his arguments. Pursuant to this, the final order imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement was passed against him.
As per the petitioner, he left Mumbai for Kolkata to be with his parents during the COVID-19 pandemic and hence could not report to work.
In his plea, Bakuli claimed the decision was harsh and that the enquiry violated the principles of natural justice as he was not given a chance to put forth his case.
The bench, however, noted that there has been no such violation, as several opportunities were given to him to remain present during the disciplinary proceedings.
Bakuli remained absent from work unauthorisedly, due to which the RBI was left with no option but to initiate disciplinary action, the HC observed.
In July 2020 (during the pandemic), the RBI issued a notice stating that there would be resumption of operation in the Central Office Departments by following safety protocols, it noted.
