Whalesbook
The Bombay High Court has affirmed the Reserve Bank of India’s decision to compulsorily retire a senior assistant who remained absent from duty without permission for nearly three years. The court dismissed the employee's plea, ruling that such prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes grave misconduct and is detrimental to public interest.
What Happened
In a recent ruling on June 10, 2026, the Bombay High Court upheld the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) decision to compulsorily retire Animesh Bakuli, a former senior assistant. The court dismissed the petitioner’s request to set aside his retirement order, which had been issued in February 2023. The bench, comprising Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait Sethna, concluded that the RBI’s disciplinary action was justified given the employee’s prolonged unauthorized absence from his official duties.
Why This Matters for Workplace Governance
For observers of public institutions and major financial organizations, this case highlights the strict standards of conduct and accountability expected within such entities. The court observed that unauthorized absence by an official in a responsible role is not merely a personal matter but one that can be detrimental to the public interest. By backing the central bank’s disciplinary process, the judiciary has reinforced the principle that institutional rules regarding attendance and conduct are binding and that employees are expected to follow established procedures for leave and reporting.
Background of the Case
Animesh Bakuli joined the RBI in 2013 and was designated as a senior assistant in 2018. According to court records, the disciplinary action followed a series of events involving repeated requests for a transfer to Kolkata, which the RBI did not approve. From March 19, 2020, the employee stopped reporting for duty. The RBI maintained that it made multiple attempts to communicate with him via email and letters, directing him to either resume work or submit valid leave applications supported by medical documentation. The central bank reported that the employee failed to respond to these communications or present himself for departmental inquiries. Consequently, following a breach of conduct rules, the bank issued the order for compulsory retirement.
The Court’s Findings
The petitioner argued that his absence was due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic and family health issues, and he claimed the disciplinary inquiry violated natural justice. However, the High Court bench found no merit in these arguments. The court noted that the employee had been provided with multiple opportunities to present his defense during the inquiry proceedings but failed to utilize them. The bench emphasized that it would not interfere with the findings of the competent authority, as the disciplinary process had been followed correctly and the charge of grave misconduct was substantiated by the prolonged unauthorized absence.
What Investors and Observers May Track
While this is a specific labor and employment case, it serves as a reminder of the importance of robust internal governance and disciplinary frameworks within large organizations. For stakeholders and those interested in organizational management, the key monitorable remains the consistent application of labor and staff regulations. The case underscores that for major institutions, adherence to established staff policies is essential to maintaining operational efficiency and public trust. The dismissal of the plea reaffirms that the judiciary generally respects the internal disciplinary mechanisms of institutions when those processes are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.