The Bombay High Court has upheld the Reserve Bank of India's decision to compulsorily retire a senior assistant for unauthorised absence from work. According to reports from The Hindu BusinessLine, a bench of Justices R I Chagla and Advait Sethna noted that such unauthorised absence would undoubtedly be detrimental to public interest and constitute grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea, stating the RBI's decision does not suffer from any infirmity. The ruling was passed on June 10, 2025, providing clarity on the serious nature of prolonged unauthorised absence in RBI service.
The petitioner, Animesh Bakuli, was a senior assistant with the RBI since 2013 and held the designation since January 2018. As reported by The Hindu BusinessLine, Bakuli remained absent from duties without permission from March 2020, despite the RBI sending repeated communications directing him to report back to duty or submit a leave application supported by medical certificate. The RBI issued a show-cause notice and initiated an enquiry against him for breach and misconduct of rules and regulations governing the apex bank. In his plea, Bakuli claimed he left Mumbai for Kolkata during the COVID-19 pandemic to be with his parents and could not report to work. The RBI had issued a notice in July 2020 stating there would be resumption of operations in Central Office Departments by following safety protocols.
According to The Hindu BusinessLine reports, Bakuli failed to reply to the show-cause notice and did not appear for enquiry meetings to present his arguments. The RBI then issued a final order imposing compulsory retirement as penalty. Bakuli had on several occasions sought that the RBI transfer him to Kolkata so that he could live with his parents, but the Reserve Bank rejected his requests. In his plea, he argued the decision was harsh and that the enquiry violated principles of natural justice as he was not given a chance to present his case.
As reported by The Hindu BusinessLine, the bench observed that there has been no violation of natural justice principles as several opportunities were given to Bakuli to remain present during disciplinary proceedings. The court noted that the RBI was left with no option but to initiate disciplinary action due to Bakuli's unauthorised absence. The petitioner had also sought direction to the Reserve Bank to disburse payment and allowances blocked since December 2020 without notice. The court dismissed Bakuli's plea, stating the RBI's decision does not suffer from any infirmity.
