The Bombay High Court has upheld the Reserve Bank of India’s decision to compulsorily retire a senior assistant who remained absent from work without approval for nearly three years. The court ruled that prolonged unauthorised absence from a position carrying public responsibility amounts to serious misconduct and can justify removal from service.
A division bench of Justices R I Chagla and Advait M Sethna dismissed a petition filed by former RBI employee Animesh Bakuli, who had challenged the central bank’s disciplinary action. Bakuli had sought the cancellation of the compulsory retirement order issued in February 2023 and requested the release of salary, allowances and other service-related benefits that he claimed were withheld.
Court records showed that Bakuli joined the RBI as an assistant in January 2013 and became a permanent employee later that year. He was promoted to the position of senior assistant in January 2018. Before the disciplinary proceedings began, he had submitted multiple requests seeking a transfer to Kolkata, which were not approved by the RBI.
According to the central bank, Bakuli stopped reporting for duty from 19 March, 2020, and remained absent without authorisation for close to three years. The RBI stated that it repeatedly contacted him through emails, asking him either to resume work or submit leave applications supported by medical documents. However, the employee allegedly neither responded to the communications nor provided a satisfactory explanation for his absence.
Following departmental proceedings, the RBI ordered his compulsory retirement in January 2023. The employee argued before the court that the action violated principles of natural justice and attributed his absence to circumstances arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, his parents’ health conditions and the rejection of his transfer requests.
The RBI defended its decision, maintaining that the employee had been given multiple opportunities to return to duty. The bank argued that his prolonged absence had disrupted institutional functioning and amounted to abandonment of service.
The High Court agreed with the RBI’s position, observing that employees occupying responsible roles in public institutions cannot remain away from duty indefinitely without authorisation. The court held that such conduct adversely affects public interest and that the penalty imposed could not be considered disproportionate under the circumstances.
