Synopsis

The petitioner, a Senior Assistant at RBI, remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from March 19, 2020, without permission or intimation. Despite multiple emails, letters, and opportunities to report back, he failed to respond or submit any leave application. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved. The Competent Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulation 47(1)(e) of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948. The petitioner challenged the order by way of a writ petition, contending violation of natural justice, non-service of charge sheets, and procedural irregularities. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: (i) the petitioner had been given adequate opportunities; (ii) the three different charge sheet numbers were merely outward numbers for three addresses; (iii) unauthorized absence from a responsible post for a prolonged period constitutes grave misconduct; (iv) the court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority.

1.Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay civil appellate jurisdiction

Writ petition no. 15756 of 2023

Animesh bakuli (petitioner) vs. Reserve bank of india (respondent)

Coram: hon'ble mr. justice r.i. chagla and hon'ble mr. justice advait m. sethna

Core Law: Service Law – RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948 – Unauthorized absence – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalty of compulsory retirement – Scope of judicial review.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Advait M. Sethna (Division Bench)
Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026 (Reserved on April 23, 2026)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15756 of 2023
Citation: Not reported (unreported)

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 – Regulation 39(1) (duty to obtain permission before absence), Regulation 39(2) (consequences of unauthorized absence), Regulation 47 (disciplinary proceedings and penalties), Regulation 47(1)(e) (compulsory retirement as penalty), Regulation 47(4) (suspension pending proceedings), Regulations 48, 49, 50 (appeals)

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

• Principles of natural justice – opportunity of hearing

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a bank employee for unauthorized absence from duty for a prolonged period (over two years) is sustainable, and whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer.

Key legal principles applied:

• Unauthorized absence as misconduct: Under Regulation 39(1) of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948, an employee shall not absent himself from duties without first obtaining permission. Unauthorized absence constitutes misconduct under Regulation 47.

• Consequences of unauthorized absence:&n

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.