Court holds that SBI failed to consider medical evidence and violated procedural requirements under Rule 40(3) of SBI Officers' Service Rules, directing reinstatement with continuity of service
In a significant judgment dated September 3, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided by Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, set aside the State Bank of India's (SBI) order that treated Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh's prolonged absence from duty as voluntary resignation under Rule 40(3) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. The court held that the Bank's action was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it failed to give due consideration to the medical grounds furnished by the petitioner and did not follow the mandatory procedural safeguards before declaring abandonment of service.
The controversy arose after Mr. Singh, a senior SBI officer with over 30 years of unblemished service, was transferred from Patna Zone to Muzaffarpur Zone in June 2019. Shortly after reporting for duty at the new posting, Mr. Singh was diagnosed with acute jaundice and advised complete rest. He applied for medical leave, which was initially sanctioned through the Bank's HRMS portal for the period from July 1 to July 31, 2019, and was paid salary for the same. Subsequently, he developed a severe leg ailment requiring further hospitalization and rest till mid-December 2019. Despite furnishing medical certificates and applying for extensions, the Bank later declined the earlier sanctioned leave on grounds that the approving authority lacked competence and treated his absence as unauthorized.
The Bank issued a notice on November 6, 2019, directing Mr. Singh to report for duty or explain his absence within 30 days, warning that failure to do so would amount to voluntary resignation. When Mr. Singh reported for duty on December 16, 2019, after being declared medically fit, he was served a second notice dated December 13, 2019, confirming his "voluntary vacation" of employment effective December 7, 2019, and demanding payment equivalent to three months' salary as compensation.
Challenging these orders, Mr. Singh contended that the Bank had ignored the valid medical certificates and his entitlement to leave, treated the sanctioned leave as unauthorized without proper examination, and failed to serve notices at his recorded address. His appeal to the Bank's Appellate Authority was rejected without adequately addressing these issues.
The High Court, after detailed analysis, found that:
- Sanction of leave through the HRMS portal and payment of salary evidenced acceptance of the medical grounds initially.
- The Bank's subsequent rejection on the ground of incompetence of the approving authority was arbitrary and not supported by any cogent reason or verification of medical documents.
- The petitioner had sufficient leave balance, and the absence was due to compelling medical circumstances, not wilful neglect.
- The procedure prescribed under Rule 40(3), which mandates service of notices at the last known address and an opportunity to explain absence, was not followed in letter and spirit.
- The petitioner was not given a meaningful chance to explain before the drastic step of treating his absence as voluntary resignation was taken.
- The Bank's action violated principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat and Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, the court underscored that unauthorized absence does not automatically mean wilful absence, especially when supported by medical evidence. It directed the Bank to reinstate Mr. Singh with continuity of service, but without salary or allowances for the period of absence, which would still count for service benefits.
This judgment reinforces the need for banks and public employers to adhere strictly to procedural fairness and consider medical evidence earnestly before invoking severe consequences like voluntary resignation for prolonged absence. It also highlights the protective ambit of service rules against arbitrary termination, ensuring employees are not deprived of their livelihood without due process.
Bottom Line:
Rule 40(3) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 - Employee cannot be treated as having voluntarily vacated employment without proper consideration of medical grounds and adherence to procedural requirements under the Rules.
Statutory provision(s):
State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 - Rule 40(2), Rule 40(3); Constitution of India, Article 14
Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State Bank of India, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979142
