Bombay High Court upholds RBI employee’s compulsory retirement over nearly 3 years of unauthorised absence

“The petitioner occupied the post of senior assistant of the Respondent – RBI, having completed five years of service with the Respondent – RBI and would undoubtedly be occupying a responsible post from which he has unauthorisedly absented himself for a similar period of time. Hence, as held by the Supreme Court, such unauthorised absence would undoubtedly be detrimental to the public interest and said to be a grave misconduct which would warrant dismissal from service,” the June 10 order read. 

Justices R I Chagla and Advait M Sethna noted that the RBI employee remained absent from his duties from March 19, 2020 and continued to stay away from work without authorisation for nearly three years.

‘Joined in 2013, compulsorily retired in 2023’

• It was placed on record that the petitioner was appointed on January 28, 2013, temporarily as an assistant (class III) by the RBI.
• The petitioner, after completion of six months, was appointed as a permanent employee on August 1, 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was designated as senior assistant on January 31, 2018. 
• It was alleged that the petitioner had made multiple requests to the central bank asking for his transfer to Kolkata between 2017 and 2018.
• However, the RBI rejected the transfer request of the petitioner.
• Subsequently, the petitioner remained absent from his duties from March 19, 2020 and continued to stay away from work without authorisation for nearly three years, without obtaining permission from his reporting officer or informing the RBI.
• The RBI sent several emails to the petitioner directing him to report back to duty or submit a leave application supported by a medical certificate.  
• However, the petitioner neither responded to those communications nor furnished any explanation for his absence. The RBI maintained that he failed to resume duties despite repeated opportunities and had effectively abandoned his post.
• Disciplinary proceedings were eventually initiated, leading to an order of compulsory retirement on January 31, 2023. The said order was forwarded to the petitioner at all three addresses available with the RBI. 

• It was also claimed that the petitioner’s parents addressed a letter to the Governor of the RBI on February 20, 2023 and April 24, 2023 seeking intervention. 
• The petitioner, however, contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
• He argued that his absence was attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic, his parents’ ill health, and the rejection of his transfer requests to Kolkata. 

Arguments 

Appearing for himself, the petitioner submitted that by the said order,  the RBI has thrown him out of its service by an arbitrary decision which is unethical and unconstitutional. 

He further argued that the said order requires to be set aside and he is entitled to payment and allowances, other concessions, which were unethically blocked by the RBI since December, 2020 without notice. 

He added that his appeal was not entertained by the RBI after 4 months and hence he had no choice but to file the present petition. 

Representing the RBI, Senior Advocate S U Kamdar argued that by unauthorisedly absenting himself for a similar period of time had caused unauthorised detriment to the public interest and accordingly the penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be harsh or unwarranted. 

He further submitted that there was no question of putting the petitioner under suspension, when he himself had failed to report back to duty and/or remained unauthorisedly absent.