Judicial Review Cannot Re-examine Merits of Compulsory Retirement for Established Unauthorized Absence from Service

The Petitioner, a Senior Assistant at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), remained absent from duty starting March 19, 2020, without prior permission or intimation

Despite multiple emails and letters from the RBI between August 2020 and June 2021 directing him to resume duty or submit medical certificates, the Petitioner failed to respond or report

A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on July 22, 2022, followed by a Charge Sheet issued in triplicate to the Petitioner’s three known addresses

An Enquiry Officer (EO) was appointed, but the Petitioner failed to attend three scheduled hearings despite notice

The EO proceeded ex-parte, finding the charges of gross misconduct and unauthorized absence proved

Consequently, the Competent Authority passed an order on February 13, 2023, compulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service

The Petitioner challenged this order, alleging violation of natural justice regarding the service of charge sheets and seeking back-pay

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent order of compulsory retirement violated the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-service of specific charge sheets

2. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement for unauthorized absence was arbitrary, harsh, or disproportionate to the misconduct

3. Whether the Respondent was required to place the Petitioner under suspension and provide subsistence allowance during the period of unauthorized absence

Regulation 39(1) of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948, which prohibits absence without permission, and Regulation 39(2), which disentitles an employee to pay during unauthorized absence

Regulation 47(1)(e) read with Regulation 26(2A), providing for compulsory retirement as a disciplinary measure

Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P. v. M. Adinarayana, which restricts judicial review from sitting as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings

LIC of India v. Om Parkash regarding abandonment of service

Ram Murti Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, establishing that principles of natural justice have limited application in cases of compulsory retirement based on subjective academic/service satisfaction

The Court found that the Petitioner’s claim regarding the non-service of Charge Sheets S5226 and S5228 was legally untenable, as these were merely outward tracking numbers for the same charge sheet sent in triplicate to ensure delivery

The Court observed that the RBI had provided ample opportunity for the Petitioner to join the inquiry, which he ignored, thus satisfying the requirements of natural justice

On the issue of suspension, the Court held that Regulation 47(4) was inapplicable because an employee who has effectively abandoned his post and is already unauthorizedly absent cannot be "suspended" from duties he is not performing

Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court reasoned that unauthorized absence for nearly three years in a responsible institution like the RBI constitutes "grave misconduct" detrimental to public interest

Following established doctrines, the Court noted it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Disciplinary Authority unless the punishment is "shocking to the conscience," which was not the case here given the Petitioner's persistent refusal to resume work despite reminders

The petition was dismissed, and the order of compulsory retirement was upheld. The Court ruled that the Petitioner was not entitled to any back-pay or allowances for the period of his unauthorized absence as per Regulation 39(2)