Unauthorised absence by RBI official grave misconduct: Bombay HC; upholds his removal
A bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait Sethna, in the judgment passed on June 10, stated that the petitioner Animesh Bakuli was a senior assistant in the RBI and would undoubtedly be holding a responsible post from which he was absent without leave for a long period of time.
Read more: RBI pushes banks to bring more dollars home
“Such unauthorized absence would undoubtedly be a serious misconduct that would be prejudicial to the public interest and warrant dismissal,” the court said. he said.
Rejecting Bakuli’s request, the organization said that the RBI’s decision to compulsorily retire him did not cause any adverse effects.
Bakuli had wanted the HC to quash the RBI’s February 2023 order compulsorily retiring him from service for unauthorized absence. He also requested an instruction from the Central Bank to pay the payments and other appropriations blocked since December 2020 without prior notice.
The petitioner was working in the RBI since 2013 and was appointed as senior assistant since January 2018. Bakuli had requested several times that the RBI transfer him to Kolkata so that he could live with his family. Resheve Bank rejected their demands.
Bakuli remained away from his duty without permission from his superiors since March 2020. The RBI sent repeated communications to Bakuli directing him to either return to duty or submit a leave application supported by a medical certificate. But he did not respond.
The RBI subsequently issued a show-cause notice to him and initiated an investigation against him for violation and abuse of rules and regulations governing the apex bank.
According to the RBI, Bakuli did not respond to the notice nor did he attend the investigation meetings to present his allegations. Thereupon, a final decision was issued, imposing a mandatory retirement sentence on him.
According to the petitioner, he traveled from Mumbai to Kolkata to be with his family during the COVID-19 pandemic and hence could not go to work.
In his defence, Bakuli claimed that the decision was harsh and that the investigation violated the principles of natural justice as he was not given a chance to present his case.
However, the board noted that there was no such violation as he was given various opportunities to be present during the disciplinary hearing.
HC observed that Bakuli was away from work without permission and hence, the RBI was left with no option but to initiate disciplinary action.
Read more: RBI Governor meets Bengal CM Adhikari ahead of state’s first budget
In July 2020 (during the pandemic), the RBI issued a notification stating that activities would resume in Head Office Departments by following safety protocols.
