Persistent Indiscipline and Voluntary Non-Participation in Inquiry Proceedings Justify the Penalty of Dismissal from Service

The Appellant joined the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as an Assistant in 2013

On September 12, 2018, a Charge-sheet was issued under Regulation 47(1) of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948, alleging violations of Regulation 32, including insubordination, absence from duties, and failure to comply with instructions

Despite being served notices and marking attendance in the office on inquiry dates, the Appellant abstained from the proceedings

An ex-parte Inquiry Report dated December 14, 2018, found the charges proved

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Appellant from service on February 28, 2019

A Departmental Appeal and a Review Petition were subsequently dismissed

The Appellant challenged these orders via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on May 18, 2026

1. Whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and amounted to double jeopardy under the RBI General Administration Manual given the prior regularization of late attendance

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte nature of the inquiry and the Appellant's mitigating matrimonial circumstances

3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority improperly relied on past records and instances of misconduct not included in the original Charge-sheet

Regulation 47(1) of the RBI (Staff) Regulations, 1948, which dictates disciplinary procedures and penalties

Paragraph No. 5.3.2.5 and 5.3.4.14 of the RBI General Administration Manual, which provides guidelines on the imposition of penalties and the requirement for recorded findings on each charge

The principle of proportionality in administrative law, assessing whether the punishment fit the "pattern of indiscipline" rather than isolated acts

The standard that personal distress does not exempt an employee from complying with lawful institutional directions or participating in departmental inquiries

The Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the inquiry was unfair, noting that the Appellant was duly served and present in the office on hearing dates but "voluntarily abstained" from appearing before the Inquiry Officer

Regarding the claim of double jeopardy, the Court reasoned that the regularisation of leave for late attendance did not "efface the disciplinary consequences" of the Appellant's broader conduct, which included persistent insubordination and neglect of duty

The Court found that the charges were not "mere administrative lapses" but cumulative acts of indiscipline affecting the organization's functioning

The Court held that the mitigating plea of matrimonial distress—raised only at the appellate stage—could not justify a "prolonged neglect of official duties" or the failure to respond to any communication during the inquiry

The Court satisfied itself that the Appellate and Review Authorities had duly considered the fresh material (medical and legal records) before concluding that no interference with the penalty was warranted

The Court affirmed that persistent indiscipline and refusal to participate in an inquiry after due notice justify the penalty of dismissal

The Appeal and all pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs