{"id":33514,"date":"2026-10-07T05:14:28","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T05:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=33514"},"modified":"2026-10-07T05:14:28","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T05:14:28","slug":"sick-leave-approved-but-sbi-declared-his-job-voluntarily-vacated-why-patna-hc-quashed-its-rule-403-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=33514","title":{"rendered":"Sick leave approved, but SBI declared his job \u2018voluntarily vacated\u2019: Why Patna HC quashed its Rule 40(3) action"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Sick<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: Can a bank treat an employee as having voluntarily resigned after a long absence from work if his medical leave was earlier approved and he had submitted medical records? The Patna high court recently examined this question while hearing a challenge by a State Bank of India (SBI<\/a>) employee who was treated as having voluntarily vacated his job after remaining absent from duty.The high court found that the bank had not properly examined the employee\u2019s medical grounds or given him a fair opportunity to explain his absence before taking the drastic step of treating him as having left the service. It quashed the bank\u2019s orders and directed SBI to reinstate the employee with continuity of service, but without salary or allowances for the period he did not actually work.What was the dispute between the SBI employee and the bank?<\/span>According to the court order, the employee had joined SBI in 1989 and was later promoted as assistant manager and then deputy manager. The dispute arose after he was transferred from the bank\u2019s Digha branch in Patna to the Muzaffarpur Zone in June 2019 and was required to report at the Regional Business Office in Bettiah.He reported at the Muzaffarpur Zone on June 25, 2019, and worked there till June 28. He then applied for medical leave after being diagnosed with jaundice and claimed that he was advised complete rest for 45 days. His leave from July 1 to July 31 was approved through the bank\u2019s HRMS system.The employee later said he developed severe pain in his leg and remained under treatment. He was admitted to a private clinic on October 17 and claimed that he eventually reported at Bettiah after being declared medically fit in December.However, SBI later treated his absence as unauthorised. The bank said the leave had been approved by an authority that was not competent to sanction it and that the employee was required to report at Bettiah.What action did SBI take against the employee?<\/span>SBI communicated on October 22, 2019, declining the leave and treating his absence as unauthorised from June 29.It then issued a notice on November 6 asking him to report for duty and explain his absence within 30 days. The notice warned that failure to do so would mean he had voluntarily vacated his employment.A second notice dated December 13 declared that he had voluntarily vacated his service with effect from December 7 and directed him to pay an amount equivalent to three months\u2019 salary.The employee challenged the action before the bank\u2019s appellate authority, but his appeal was rejected in June 2020. He then approached the Patna high court.What did SBI argue?<\/span>The bank argued that the employee had sought a particular posting after his transfer but, after that request was not accepted, he took medical leave instead of joining at Bettiah.SBI also argued that the sick leave had been approved by the Digha branch manager even though the employee had already been relieved from that branch. According to the bank, the approval was an administrative mistake and could not give him a right to remain absent.The bank further said the employee had remained absent for more than 90 consecutive days and that it had followed the procedure under Rule 40(3) of the SBI Officers\u2019 Service Rules, 1992.What does Rule 40(3) of the SBI service rules say?<\/span>Rule 40(3) deals with prolonged absence from duty or overstaying leave. Where the conditions under the rule are met, SBI can issue a notice asking an officer to report for duty within 30 days.If the officer does not report within that period, the appointing authority can treat the employee as having voluntarily vacated the employment.The high court, however, said Rule 40(3) could be invoked only after the bank first determined whether the absence was actually unauthorised or amounted to overstaying leave.“The scheme of Rule 40, therefore, requires the authority to first determine whether the absence of the officer is, in fact, unauthorized or amounts to overstaying of leave within the meaning of Rule 40(2). It is only upon the requisite conditions being satisfied that the consequence contemplated under Rule 40(3) can be invoked against the concerned officer,” the high court said.What did the Patna high court find?<\/span>Justice Harish Kumar <\/span>examined the employee\u2019s medical records, the earlier approval of his leave through the HRMS portal and the procedure followed by SBI before treating him as having voluntarily vacated his service.The court noted that the employee had submitted medical prescriptions and reports and that the bank had not specifically found those documents to be forged or fabricated. It also noted that he had received full salary for the period for which his sick leave had been approved.The court said that even if the Digha branch manager was not competent to approve the leave, the application should have been forwarded to the competent authority.“Even if, for the sake of argument and for the present, the contention of the Bank is accepted that the leave was sanctioned by an authority who was not competent to grant such leave at the relevant point of time… the least that was expected of the respondent-authorities was to forward the petitioner\u2019s application to the competent authority for proper consideration of his request for sick leave,” the court said.It further held that the earlier approval could not be used to simply reject the employee\u2019s medical claim without examining whether his medical reasons were genuine.“The factum of such approval could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for completely discarding the petitioner\u2019s claim for sick leave without examining the genuineness and bona fides of the medical grounds on which such leave was sought,” the court said.The high court also distinguished between absence from work and wilful absence.“Mere absence from duty without an application for leave or prior permission may constitute unauthorized absence, but it does not invariably follow that such absence is wilful,” it said.The court found that SBI had not given convincing reasons for rejecting the medical documents. If the bank had doubts about their genuineness, it could have verified them or referred the employee for examination by a medical board.It also found that the appellate authority failed to properly consider the earlier HRMS approval and payment of salary. The employee had not been given a fair and meaningful opportunity to explain his alleged unauthorised absence before the drastic consequence was imposed.“The impugned action, therefore, also suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice,” the court said.The court concluded that SBI\u2019s action did not meet the requirements of fairness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution.What did the Patna high court order?<\/span>The high court quashed SBI\u2019s notices dated November 6 and December 13, 2019, which treated the employee as having voluntarily vacated his service. It also set aside the appellate authority\u2019s order dated June 24, 2020.The court directed SBI to:<\/p>\n

\n