Persistent Indiscipline and Refusal to Participate in Inquiry Justify Dismissal Despite Absence of Financial Loss

The Petitioner, an Assistant at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), was dismissed from service on February 28, 2019.

A charge-sheet issued on September 12, 2018, alleged five counts of misconduct: negligible desk presence/failure to complete data entry, habitual late arrival, failure to update leave records in the 'Samadhan' portal, non-submission of performance appraisal reports (PAR), and non-submission of property returns.

The Petitioner failed to reply to the charge-sheet and did not appear for the inquiry proceedings despite being marked present in the office on several hearing dates.

The inquiry proceeded ex parte, and all charges were proved.

The Petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed on January 29, 2020, and a subsequent request for reconsideration was declined on June 23, 2020.

The Petitioner challenged these orders primarily on the ground of proportionality, citing mental distress due to matrimonial litigation as a mitigating factor.

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry and finding of guilt suffered from violation of natural justice, perversity, or arbitrariness.

2. Whether the disciplinary or appellate authority relied upon extraneous or unproved material.

3. Whether the appellate order was vitiated by non-application of mind or absence of reasons.

4. Whether the penalty of dismissal was so shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to warrant judicial interference.

Regulation 32 and 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, which mandate obedience to orders and prescribe penalties for breach of discipline.

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, establishing that courts should not sit in appeal over findings of fact unless perverse or lacking evidence.

The "Wednesbury unreasonableness" and proportionality standards from Union of India v. G. Ganayutham and Om Kumar v. Union of India were applied to evaluate the quantum of punishment.

Chairman, LIC of India v. A. Masilamani regarding the necessity for appellate authorities to pass reasoned orders.

The Court found that the inquiry followed due process as the Petitioner was given multiple opportunities but chose to abstain despite being physically present in the office.

On the issue of extraneous material, the Court clarified that while the Bank noted past conduct, the foundation of the punishment was the proved charges in the 2018 charge-sheet.

Regarding the appellate order, the Court held that although brief, it reflected application of mind by specifically addressing and rejecting the Petitioner’s plea of personal distress, noting he had failed to disclose such issues during earlier counseling.

On proportionality, the Court reasoned that while the charges did not involve corruption, the "sustained pattern of indiscipline" and "functional unreliability" in an institution as critical as the RBI justified a major penalty.

It held that personal matrimonial distress could explain temporary lapses but not a total disregard for institutional discipline and the refusal to participate in the inquiry.

The request for reconsideration under Regulation 50(h) was rightly rejected as it raised no new points; consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.