Karnataka High Court
Shri S Gunaseelan vs The Management Of Reserve Bank Of India on 17 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
WP No. 12972 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 12972 OF 2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. S. GUNASEELAN,
S/O LATE A.M.D SAMUEL,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3155/A, 11TH MAIN,
HAL IInd STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
signed by C KARNATAKA & CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
HONNUR
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
SAB
...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI. K. KASTURI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
COURT OF SRI. V VINAY GIRI AND
KARNATAKA SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATES)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE DISPUTES NUMBERED AS
C.R.NO.77/2000 & C.R.NO.11/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
WP No. 12972 of 2012
HC-KAR
HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated
03.04.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore, in Proceedings bearing
CR Nos. 77/2000 and No.11/2005 vide Annexures B & C
respectively.
3. Certain facts which are noticed from the pleadings and
not disputed are as under:
Petitioner joined the service under the respondent on
02.02.1965 as Grade-II clerk. From 17.12.1987 to
16.08.1988, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and
alleging this charge, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated
against the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
4. The petitioner denied the charges leveled against
him and participated in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority,
after considering the materials placed before it, concluded that
charges against the petitioner are proved and proposed a
penalty of dismissal.
5. The second show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner. Petitioner replied to the second show-cause notice
and thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
6. Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate
authority. The appellate authority modified the penalty imposed
by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed the order of
dismissal. However, it has held that unauthorized absence
from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 should be treated as leave
without pay.
7. The petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.No.954/1990 which was dismissed and thereafter filed
W.A.No.1813/1998 and the same was also dismissed. Then the
petitioner filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.17259/1999 and the same is also dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
8. This court in the earlier writ petition had held that
the petitioner has to raise dispute before the Industrial
Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Industrial
Tribunal. Before the Tribunal again the evidence was led and
the Tribunal after considering the material placed before it has
rejected the reference. Aggrieved by the aforementioned
awards, petitioner is before this court.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that there is no past record of misconduct against the
petitioner. Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from
16.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 on account of unavoidable
circumstances. Petitioner's mother expired in the year 1985
and petitioner's sister expired on 03.12.1987 and petitioner
being in a difficult position filed application seeking leave and
same was not considered and petitioner was under obligation to
look after the construction work of his deceased sister and for
these valid reasons, he could not attend the duty from
17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988.
10. It is further submitted that Appellate Authority
considering the circumstances under which the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
remained unauthorisedly absent, treated the said unauthorized
absence as a special leave without payment and thereby, the
misconduct alleged is not established. As such penalty of
dismissal from service is unsustainable, is the submission.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that the penalty of dismissal from service is
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and thus would
contend that the penalty of dismissal from service has to be set
aside and since the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation, the petitioner shall be granted all the back
wages and other service benefits.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that petitioner's unauthorized
absence for 7 1/2 months starting from 17.12.1987 to
16.08.1988 is duly established. Petitioner's application seeking
leave was rejected by the competent authority and the said
order is not questioned. Despite that, the petitioner has chosen
not to attend to duty and remained absent for 7 1/2 months.
13. In addition to that, the first appellate authority has
also noticed and petitioner did not attend to the duty while the
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
enquiry was going on and this aspect was also noticed by the
First Appellate Authority and this unauthorized absence post
16.08.1988 is also not disputed by the petitioner and the
Appellate Authority has also taken into account the previous
misconduct by the petitioner and the lenient view shown to the
petitioner before imposing the penalty, on earlier occasion.
14. It is also submitted that the Appellate Authority has
taken a lenient view by treating the 7 1/2 months unauthorized
absence as leave without pay and the said lenient view taken
by the Appellate Authority cannot be construed as a finding in
favour of the petitioner insofar as alleged misconduct is
concerned. It is submitted that penalty of dismissal is imposed
after holding that the alleged misconduct is established.
15. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention
that for such a long period of unauthorized absence, the
penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate, would rely upon
the judgments of the Apex Court in Maan Singh Vs. Union of
India and others [(2003) 3 SCC 464] and also Regional
Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog
[(2009)9 SCC 462].
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by way of
alternate submission reply would submit that order of dismissal
from service is to be modified as compulsory retirement and
the petitioner should be granted the benefit available under the
Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990(for short 'The
Regulation, 1990'). Referring to the said Regulation,
it is urged that under Regulation 3(3) of the Regulation, 1990,
the employee who has retired from service between
01.01.1986 and 01.01.1990 is also entitled to pension and
since the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of the
impugned order, the petitioner could not exercise the option
available under the Regulation, 1990. Thus, he would
alternatively contend that petitioner should be treated as
compulsorily retired from service and the benefits flowing from
the Regulation, 1990 shall be granted to the petitioner.
17. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the bar and perused the records.
18. The finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the
petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 17.12.1987 to
16.08.1988 is supported by the materials on record. The
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
Appellate Authority has also taken note of this aspect so also
the Tribunal. Even going by the defence raised by the
petitioner, it is noticed that the petitioner did not attend to duty
from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 and he tried to justify his
absence on the premise that he was occupied with the
construction of house of his deceased sister.
19. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was
indisposed or was not capable of attending to the duty. The
petitioner raised a contention that his mother died in year 1985
and his sister died in the month of December 1987 and he was
in a depressed state of mind. On the other hand, his further
contention is that he was taking up the responsibility of
construction of the house for his sister clearly suggest that he
was not in the depressed state of mind and he was capable of
attending to the duty. It is further noticed that application
seeking leave was rejected by the employer and same is not
questioned. This being the position, the finding of unauthorized
absence from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988 is duly established.
20. It is further noticed that the Disciplinary Authority
imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. On an appeal filed
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient
view by taking unauthorized absence from 17.12.1987 to
16.08.1988 as a special leave without any payment. This in
fact has ensured the continuity of service for the petitioner for
claiming gratuity and other service benefits. While modifying
the penalty, first Appellate Authority has also taken into note of
the fact that petitioner was found guilty in the previous
proceeding initiated against the petitioner.
21. In addition to that, it is also the noticed by the
Appellate Authority that petitioner remained unauthorisely
absent for 1 1/2 years after 16.08.1988 when the enquiry was
going on. Though an observation is made relating to his
authorized absence for 1 1/2 years, enquiry is not initiated
against the petitioner. Though enquiry was not initiated, this
Court cannot hold that further unauthorized absence is the
basis for the penalty imposed. The penalty imposed is on the
basis of proven misconduct of unauthorized absence
commencing from 17.12.1987 to 16.08.1988. Despite noticing
unauthiorised absence for 7 1/2 months and thereafter during
the course of enquiry, the Appellate Authority has taken a
lenient view to ensure that continuity of service is maintained
and the petitioner gets certain benefits. The said benefit
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
conferred on the petitioner and the leniency cannot be
construed as a finding of no guilt against the petitioner.
22. As far as the submission with reference to Regulation,
1990 is concerned, it is noticed that pension rules came into
existence in the year 1990 and the employees who had retired
between 1st January 1986 and 1st November 1990 were given
an option of opting for the benefit under the Pension
Regulation, 1990 subject to employees refunding employer's
the contribution along with the interest to be paid till the date
of refund.
23. Admittedly, the petitioner has not opted under the
said scheme. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submit that petitioner was dismissed in the year 1989 and he
was not in employment in the year 1990 when the Regulation
came into force and therefore he was not in a position to opt
for the benefit under the Regulation, 1990, it is required to be
noticed that the respondent-bank cannot be held responsible
for the petitioner not opting for the benefit under the
Regulation, 1990, as his termination was justified.
24. The respondent-bank had exercised its power to
terminate the service of the petitioner on account of proven
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
misconduct pursuant to disciplinary enquiry. This being the
position, the petitioner cannot urge to contend that the penalty
of dismissal from service is to be reduced to compulsory
retirement and the benefit is payable to petitioner under the
Regulation, 1990.
25. It is relevant to note that though there is an
observation in the order passed by the Appellate Authority that
the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent during enquiry,
the said observation is not questioned before the Tribunal by
raising a ground that the observation is made without holding
any enquiry. In fact, even before this Court, no material is
placed to show that despite the petitioner was intending to
resume the work and respondent did not allow the petitioner to
resume the work. This being the position, this Court is of the
view that petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed.
26. Even as per ratio laid down by the Apex court in the
decisions of Regional Manger, Bank of Baroda and Maan
Singh (supra), the Courts have held that in case of
unauthorized absence for a long period, the penalty of dismissal
imposed by the employer cannot be interfered with. It is well
settled question of law that in the matter of penalty imposed by
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
the employer, the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere
unless it is demonstrated that penalty imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
27. This Court has also perused the judgment in Union
of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran in SLP (Civil)
No.23631/2008. In the said case also, the Apex Court has
held that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the
disciplinary authority could not have been interfered by the
High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227
of Constitution of India. This judgment does not come to the
aid of the petitioner to interfere with the penalty imposed by
the disciplinary authority.
28. This Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the penalty imposed by the respondent-employer and the
award passed by the Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition
is dismissed.
29. However, it is submitted that the service benefits
payable to the petitioner are not yet released in favour of the
petitioner and it is still detained by the respondent-bank. The
respondent- bank shall release the service benefits payable to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20740
HC-KAR
the petitioner along with interest accrued on it within 30 days
from today.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
YN
CT: BHK
