Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Animesh Bakuli - Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No.15756 of 2023
Decided On : 10-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Animesh Bakuli, Petitioner in person present.
For the Respondent: 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.

Judicial review in disciplinary matters is restricted; courts shall not act as appellate bodies to re-evaluate evidence of unauthorized absence or substitute the penalty imposed by a competent authority, unless findings are perverse or procedurally improper, provided the employer satisfied the requirements of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized absence - Compulsory retirement - Whether employee’s extended absence constitutes grave misconduct warranting disciplinary action - Court concluded that persistent absence without permission from a responsible position constitutes abandonment of service, justifying disciplinary measures provided under governing regulations. (Para 24, 25)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is narrow - Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not act as an appellate authority to re-examine evidence or substitute its view for that of the disciplinary authority - Limited interference is permissible only if the decision is found to be based on arbitrary grounds, vitiated by malafides, or suffers from procedural impropriety in violation of natural justice. (Para 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
The employee remained absent from duties for an extended period without prior permission or intimation. Despite receiving multiple electronic and written communications directing a return to duty or submission of medical justification, no response was provided. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and notices were served through multiple channels. The employee failed to appear at various scheduled inquiry hearings despite having received notice. Consequently, the inquiry was conducted ex-parte, concluding that the employee had committed gross misconduct. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the disciplinary procedure was fair, as the employee was given multiple opportunities to present a defense. The contention that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice was rejected. The court further noted that the employer was not obligated to place the employee under suspension when the employee had effectively abandoned the post through unauthorized absence.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice due to the absence of the employee and whether the penalty of compulsory retirement for unauthorized absence was excessive and unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that judicial review is restricted in disciplinary service matters. Findings reached by a competent authority in a domestic inquiry regarding unauthorized absence, which detrimentally affects public interest, remain valid if the inquiry process was procedurally sound. An employee abandoning their post cannot claim relief on grounds of technical procedural defects if sufficient, bona fide opportunities were provided to participate.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.I. Chagla, J.

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking the quashing and setting aside of the Order dated 13th February, 2023 (“impugned Order”) issued by the General Manager and Competent Authority, HRMD, Central Office of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) 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.

The relevant facts are as under:

(i) The Petitioner was appointed on 28th 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 1st August, 2013. Thereafter, the Petitioner was designated as Senior Assistant on 31st 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 2nd 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 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 10th March 2017, 25th April 2017, 19th June 2017 and 11th April, 2018.

(iii) The Respondent – RBI vide its Communications dated 27th March, 2017 and 25th April, 2018 rejected the transfer request of the Petitioner.

(iv) The Petitioner remained absent from his duties from 19th March, 2020 without permission of his Reporting Officer and without intimation.

(v) The Respondent – RBI via multiple E-mails and Letters dated 30th August 2020, 11th September 2020, 23rd September 2020, 24th September 2020, 4th November 2020, 23rd February 2021 and 18th June 2021 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. 18th June, 2021 to 22nd 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 22nd 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 26th July, 2022 stating that the Petitioner had forgotten his e-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 9th 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 4th 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 10th August,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYR.I. CHAGLA, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.Animesh Bakuli - Petitioner Versus Reserve Bank of India – RespondentWrit Petition No.15756 of 2023Decided On : 10-06-2026

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Animesh Bakuli - Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No.15756 of 2023
Decided On : 10-06-2026