Bombay HC Dismisses RBI Employee's Writ for Suppressing Earlier Dismissal of Identical Relief by Single Judge and Supreme Court

A Division Bench found the petitioner had concealed the dismissal of a prior writ petition and an SLP, and separately identified an appellate remedy under RBI Staff Regulations, Regulation 48.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe, dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Reserve Bank of India employee challenging his termination and seeking to retain RBI service quarters. The bench dismissed the petition on 24 June 2026, finding that the petitioner had suppressed, without any explanation, the prior dismissal of an identical writ petition by a Single Judge and the subsequent dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. The bench also found that an alternate appellate remedy was available under the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. The proceedings were marked by the petitioner raising a recusal demand mid-hearing and by a court-ordered inspection of the service accommodation being frustrated.

What the Petitioner Sought

Paartha Sharathi, appearing in person, filed Writ Petition No. 6359 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought quashing of a tentative order dated 3 June 2024 passed by the Competent Authority of the RBI, and separately sought to set aside an order dated 22 November 2024 terminating his services, with a direction to treat him as continuing in service with all consequential benefits including backwages. He also prayed for setting aside a letter dated 19 March 2025 terminating his authority to occupy leave and licence accommodation, and sought an interim stay on his eviction from those premises. Additionally, he claimed compensation for alleged violation of his fundamental rights.

Suppression of Prior Proceedings

Senior counsel Mr. S. U. Kamdar, appearing for the RBI, raised a preliminary objection at the outset. He pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6481 of 2025 before a Single Judge of the same court, seeking relief against proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. That petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 11 June 2025, with a finding that the petitioner had no legal right to continue occupying the RBI premises after termination of his services.

The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 17376 of 2025, which was dismissed on 3 July 2025. Mr. Kamdar submitted that neither proceeding had been disclosed in the present petition, which sought, among other reliefs, a stay on eviction from the same service premises. The bench accepted this submission.

The Division Bench referred to its own earlier decision in Rabindra Nath Kakar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported at 2021(4) Mh.L.J. 628, a bench of which Justice G. S. Kulkarni was a member. That decision had dealt with the principles of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi in the context of litigants suppressing material facts while invoking the writ jurisdiction. The bench quoted its earlier observations, including the passage that “no litigant however placed is permitted to take such liberties and seek discretionary and equitable reliefs.”

The bench also drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120, where Justice S. B. Sinha had observed that suppression must be of a material fact to justify refusal of discretionary relief, and that whether a court refuses relief even after the suppression is addressed depends on the facts of each case. The bench treated the concealment of two directly adverse orders — both concerning the same premises and arising from the same dismissal — as squarely material.

Alternate Remedy Under RBI Staff Regulations

On the service termination challenge, the bench examined the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. Regulation 48 provides that an employee has a right of appeal against any order passed by a superior authority that injuriously affects his or her interests. Regulation 49 sets out the appellate authorities. The bench held that the petitioner had an available alternate remedy and that, in any event, the appeal process was better suited to resolve the disputed questions of fact that the petitioner's challenge would require.

The bench left it open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. It directed that if the petitioner filed such an appeal within four weeks, the authority could consider the proceedings on their own merits on the basis that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ petition, although not in a fully bona fide manner.

Inspection of Premises and Petitioner's Conduct

When the petitioner pressed for permission to retain the service accommodation, Mr. Kamdar opposed this on multiple grounds. He cited the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP and referred to repeated undertakings given by the petitioner to the RBI that had been breached. He also informed the bench that occupants of adjoining tenements had complained of a stink or smell emanating from the petitioner's flat, and that the petitioner had refused to allow inspection of the premises.

The petitioner responded that his mother was ailing and that some hygiene issues were the cause of the smell. The bench ordered that a Lady Medical Officer deputed by the RBI visit the premises in the afternoon of the same day, accompanied by a representative of the RBI and a lady constable in civil dress. The bench posted the matter at 5 p.m. and directed the petitioner to provide access.

During the morning session, the petitioner “created lot of ruckus in the Court,” according to the bench's recorded observation. After the order for inspection was passed, the petitioner raised a contention that Justice G. S. Kulkarni had previously appeared as counsel for the RBI and that the bench ought to recuse itself. The bench rejected this outright, observing that accepting such a norm would make it impossible for any judge who had appeared for the government or public bodies at the Bar to hear matters involving those bodies.

At the 5 p.m. session, the bench was informed by email from RBI officials that the door of the premises had not been opened when the inspection team arrived. The bench recorded that the petitioner appeared to have instructed the persons inside — his father, according to the petitioner — not to open the door. The petitioner then stated that access would be provided at 3 p.m. the following day, and that statement was accepted.

Directions for 25 June 2026

The bench adjourned the matter to 25 June 2026 at 11 a.m. It accepted the petitioner's statement that he would place on record an undertaking to unconditionally vacate the official quarters by 9 July 2026. The Lady Medical Officer deputed by the RBI was directed to attend the inspection on 25 June 2026 to examine the medical condition of the petitioner's mother as well. The Officer-in-Charge of the local police station was directed to provide the assistance of a lady constable in civil dress for the inspection. The RBI was given liberty to approach the court with urgent concerns arising from the inspection, including for orders to break open the door if the petitioner failed to cooperate or flouted court directions.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ Petition No. 6359 of 2026. The petition was dismissed on grounds of suppression of material facts, with the bench finding that concealment of the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6481 of 2025 by the Single Judge and Special Leave Petition No. 17376 of 2025 by the Supreme Court was sufficient reason to dismiss the present petition. The petitioner was permitted to pursue the appellate remedy available under Regulation 48 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 within four weeks. The petitioner's demand for recusal was rejected. The inspection of the service premises was deferred to 25 June 2026, and the petitioner's statement regarding an unconditional vacation undertaking by 9 July 2026 was recorded.