The court overturned the bank’s decision to treat the officer as having voluntarily left service, finding that SBI had not properly assessed his medical records or given him a fair chance to explain his prolonged absence.
The Patna High Court overturned State Bank of India decisions treating an officer as having voluntarily left his job after an extended medical absence. It ordered the bank to reinstate him with continuity of service, while withholding salary and allowances for the period he did not work. Justice Harish Kumar said the bank had not properly examined the medical grounds or given the officer a fair opportunity to explain.
The officer joined SBI in 1989 and later became a deputy manager. After a transfer in June 2019, he said he had jaundice and requested medical leave. His leave for July 1–31 was approved through the bank’s HRMS portal, and he was paid for that period. He later reported severe leg pain and further treatment. He said he returned to Bettiah after doctors declared him fit in December.
SBI later treated his absence as unauthorised. The bank argued that a branch manager who no longer had authority over the officer had approved the July leave, making the approval an administrative mistake. SBI directed him to return within 30 days and warned that otherwise he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his job. The bank formalised that outcome in December 2019; his appeal was rejected in June 2020.
The court said Rule 40(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules can be used only after determining that an absence was actually unauthorised or amounted to overstaying leave. If the original approval came from an unauthorised manager, the application should have been forwarded to the proper official and considered on its merits.
The officer had submitted prescriptions and medical reports, and the bank had not established that they were forged. If SBI had doubts, it could have verified them or referred him to a medical board. The court said the HRMS approval and salary payment also needed to be considered.
The high court stressed that absence from work does not automatically mean wilful absence. It found the procedure unfair and contrary to natural justice, and quashed the bank’s notices and appellate decision. SBI must reinstate the officer with continuity of service and related benefits, but need not pay him for time he did not work.