Pankaj Kumar Singh vs The State Bank of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8579 of 2020
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Briksh Singh Pahepuri, Resident of
Village- Pahepur, P.S.-Mufassil (Samastipur), District-Samastipur, presently
residing at Nishant Residency, Flat No.C/101, Frazer Road, P.S.-Gandhi
Maidan, District-Patna-800001
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India through the Chief General Manager, Local Head
Office, 8th Floor, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001.
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th
Floor, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001.
3. The General Manager (NW-III) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 8th
Floor, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001.
4. The Deputy General Manager, Region-5, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur, State
Bank of India, Poddar Complex, Near Zubba Sahni Park, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office,
Region-5, Bettiah, Ujjain Tola, Bettiah-845438.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raju Patel, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the S.B.I. : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Amarjeet Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Dutt Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, duly
assisted by Mr. Raju Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner,
and Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, learned Advocate for the State Bank of
India (hereinafter referred to as “the SBI”).

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
2/32
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to
st
the 1 Notice bearing No. REF: RM/RBO/BTH/HR/G/210 dated
06.11.2019, issued under the signature of the Regional Manager,
Regional Business Office (hereinafter referred to as “RBO”),
Bettiah, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 40(3) of
the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1992”). By the said notice,
the petitioner was directed to report for duty and furnish a
satisfactory explanation for his absence within thirty days from
the date of receipt of the notice, failing which it was to be
deemed that the petitioner had voluntarily vacated his office,
amounting to voluntary resignation from service without the
requisite notice.
nd
3. The petitioner has also assailed the 2 Notice
bearing No. REF No.HR/IR/2792 dated 13.12.2019, issued
under the signature of the Appointing Authority-cum-General
Manager, (NW-III), SBI, whereby it was declared that the
petitioner had voluntarily vacated the service of the Bank,
amounting to voluntary resignation from service with effect
from 07.12.2019. By the same notice, the petitioner was further
directed to pay an amount equivalent to three months’
emoluments within fifteen days from the date of receipt thereof,
failing which the Bank would be at liberty to adjust the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
3/32
amount against the petitioner’s terminal dues, without prejudice
to its right to recover the whole or any part thereof by instituting
appropriate proceedings.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notices, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief
General Manager, SBI. The said appeal, however, came to be
rejected vide order bearing No. HR/A&R/451 dated 24.06.2020,
which order has also been assailed in the present writ petition.
5. Certain facts, which are necessary for adjudication
of the controversy, may briefly be noticed hereunder:
(i). The petitioner joined the SBI on 30.11.1989 upon
being appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier at its Main Branch at
Gandhi Maidan. In due course, having been found eligible, he
was promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale-I as Assistant
Manager in the year 2006 and thereafter to Middle Management
Grade Scale-II as Deputy Manager in the year 2011.
(ii). The dispute which ultimately led to the issuance
of the impugned notices and the consequential order arose out of
the petitioner’s transfer while he was posted at the Digha
Branch of the SBI, Patna. The petitioner had applied for an
inter-zone transfer from Patna Zone to Muzaffarpur Zone on
11.03.2019 in terms of the prevailing transfer policy of the
Bank.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
4/32
(iii). The petitioner’s request for transfer was duly
considered by the Bank and, pursuant thereto, he was relieved
from the SBI, Digha Branch, Patna, on 24.06.2019, with a
direction to report to the Muzaffarpur Zone for his eventual
posting. In compliance thereof, the petitioner reported at the
Muzaffarpur Zone on 25.06.2019 and continued to discharge his
duties till 28.06.2019.
(iv). Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a letter
bearing No. HR/MK 544 dated 28.06.2019, issued by the Chief
Manager (HR) Muzaffarpur, who, at the relevant point of time,
was posted at the disposal of RBO, Bettiah.
(v) It is the case of the petitioner that, during the
aforesaid period, he was diagnosed with acute jaundice upon
consultation with Dr. N.K. Ojha, M.D., Patna, who advised him
complete rest for a period of at least forty-five days.
Consequently, the petitioner applied for leave and subsequently
sought extension thereof for the period from 01.07.2019 to
31.07.2019. The said leave was duly sanctioned by the Bank
through its HRMS portal.
(vi) While the petitioner was on bed rest in terms of
the medical advice, he developed another ailment in the form of
severe pain in his legs. Consequently, he was admitted on
17.10.2019 to the private clinic of a renowned Orthopedic

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
5/32
Surgeon, namely, Dr. Bijay Narain Singh, Patna. He remained
under his treatment for a considerable period and was further
advised to take complete rest at least till the middle of
December, 2019.
(vii) Accordingly, the petitioner remained on medical
rest from 17.10.2019 to 13.12.2019. On 14.12.2019, upon being
found medically fit, he was advised to resume his duties. It is
the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the letter of posting
dated 28.06.2019, he submitted his joining at the Regional
Business Office, Bettiah, on 16.12.2019.
(viii) Upon reporting for duty at the Regional
Business Office, Bettiah, the petitioner was served with three
communications, namely, the letter dated 22.10.2019, the notice
dated 06.11.2019 and the second/final notice dated 13.12.2019.
(ix) By the letter dated 22.10.2019, the leave which
had earlier been granted by the competent authority was
declined. It was stated therein that, since the petitioner had not
reported at R.B.O., Bettiah, his absence with effect from
29.06.2019 had been treated as unauthorized absence and no
leave had been sanctioned by the respondent-authority. The said
communication further stated that the competent authority was
not satisfied with the documentary evidence furnished by the
petitioner in support of his leave application and, consequently,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
6/32
his request for leave was declined and the period of his absence
was treated as unauthorized.
(x) By the subsequent notice dated 06.11.2019, the
petitioner was directed to report for duty and furnish a
satisfactory explanation for his absence within thirty days from
the date of receipt of the notice. It was further stipulated that, in
the event of his failure to do so, it would be deemed that the
petitioner had voluntarily vacated his office, amounting to
voluntary resignation from the service of the Bank.
(xi) Thereafter, by the communication dated
13.12.2019, the petitioner was informed that he had voluntarily
vacated the service of the Bank, which was treated as voluntary
resignation from service with effect from 07.12.2019.
(xii) Having received the aforesaid communications,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
on 21.01.2020 against the impugned communication bearing
No. HR/IR/2792 dated 13.12.2019. The petitioner thereafter
awaited the disposal of his appeal and any communication from
the Appellate Authority in that regard. However, no order was
communicated to him.
(xiii) In the circumstances, the petitioner, on
12.08.2020, submitted a representation to the Appellate
Authority through registered post as well as by email, stating,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
7/32
inter alia , that a period of more than six months had elapsed
since the filing of the appeal and, in the meantime, he had been
deprived of his service-related entitlements. Thereafter, the
petitioner received an email on 14.08.2020 informing him that
his appeal had already been rejected by a speaking order dated
24.06.2020.
6. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, referring
to the facts of the case, primarily submitted that, prior to the
dispute in question, the petitioner had completed more than
thirty years of unblemished service in the Bank. During his long
tenure, he had served in various capacities and at different
branches and offices of the Bank, where he discharged his duties
to the entire satisfaction of the organisation, and there had never
been any complaint whatsoever against his conduct or
performance.
7. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that,
pursuant to his transfer on 24.06.2019 from the SBI, Digha
Branch, Patna, to the Muzaffarpur Zone, the petitioner
immediately reported at the Muzaffarpur Zone on 25.06.2019
and continued to discharge his duties till 28.06.2019. On
28.06.2019, when the services of the petitioner were placed at
the disposal of the RBO, Bettiah, he was suffering from extreme
physical weakness and had been diagnosed with jaundice. In

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
8/32
such circumstances, the petitioner submitted his application for
medical leave through the HRMS portal, which was duly
sanctioned for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.07.2019. It is
further contended that, consequent upon sanction of the
aforesaid leave, the petitioner was paid his full salary for the
said period, as would also be evident from Annexure-10 to the
writ petition. Moreover, the leave statement of the petitioner
would demonstrate that he had substantial sick leave standing to
his credit. Considering his serious medical condition arising out
of jaundice and the ligament-related ailment resulting from an
earlier accident, the petitioner was advised complete bed rest.
8. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that the
petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the
competent authority seeking extension of his medical leave and,
from time to time, furnished the medical prescriptions and other
relevant documents in support of his claim for medical leave.
Upon completion of the prescribed treatment and having been
declared medically fit, the petitioner immediately submitted his
joining on 16.12.2019. It is contended that the action of the
respondent-authorities in subsequently treating the leave already
sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for the period from
01.07.2019 to 31.07.2019 as unauthorized absence, on the
ground that the same had not been approved by the competent

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
9/32
authority, is wholly arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable. This
is particularly so when the petitioner had admittedly been paid
his salary for the said period. The observation contained in the
letter dated 22.10.2019 that the competent authority was not
satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the
petitioner in support of his leave application is unsupported by
any cogent or valid reason and amounts to nothing more than a
mere ipse dixit . In the absence of any material or adverse
finding casting doubt upon the genuineness or bona fides of the
medical certificates and prescriptions produced by the petitioner,
the same could not have been rejected outrightly.
9. Mr. Shahi, further submitted that the mala fide
intention, pre-determined approach and ulterior motive of the
respondent-authorities are also apparent from the sequence of
st
events. The 1 Notice dated 06.11.2019, bearing No. HR/G/210,
required the petitioner to report for duty and furnish a
satisfactory explanation for his absence. However, prior thereto,
by communication dated 22.10.2019, the competent authority
had already purported to decline the leave granted to the
petitioner for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.07.2019,
notwithstanding the fact that the said leave had already been
sanctioned through the HRMS portal. It is next contended that
so far as the exercise of power under Rule 40(3) of the Rules,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
10/32
1992 is concerned, the same has been invoked against the
petitioner on an erroneous assumption that he had remained
absent from duty with effect from 28.06.2019. According to
learned Senior Advocate, the petitioner had sufficient sick leave
as well as privilege leave standing to his credit and, therefore,
the period during which he was incapacitated on account of
illness ought to have been adjusted against the accumulated
leave available to him, rather than being treated as unauthorized
absence leading to the drastic consequence of treating him as
having voluntarily vacated his office.
10. It is further contended that the notice dated
06.11.2019 was never served upon the petitioner at his last
known address, which was duly available in the records of the
Bank. The petitioner’s recorded address was Nishant Residency,
Flat No.C/101, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, which had not only
been furnished to the Bank but had also been duly renewed from
time to time by the competent authority, lastly up to 31.10.2020.
It is submitted that even the letter dated 22.10.2019, whereby
the petitioner’s leave was purportedly declined, was never
served upon him at his last known address.
nd
11. So far as the 2 Notice dated 13.12.2019 is
concerned, there is no dispute that the said notice was served
upon the petitioner at the RBO, Bettiah, on 16.12.2019, when he

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
11/32
reported there to resume his duties after having been declared
medically fit by the attending doctor. The contention of the
respondent-authorities that the aforesaid communications were
also sent to the petitioner through email, according to learned
Senior Advocate, does not inspire confidence and cannot
constitute valid service. It is submitted that the petitioner’s
official email account, through which the respondent-Bank
claims to have communicated the relevant notices and orders,
had already been blocked by the Bank unilaterally, for reasons
best known to the Bank itself. Consequently, the respondent-
authorities could not have relied upon such mode of
communication while simultaneously failing to serve the
petitioner at his recorded and last known postal address.
12. Referring to Rule 40(3) of the Rules, 1992, Mr.
Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, further submitted that the
respondent-Bank was admittedly aware of the petitioner’s last
known address and, therefore, in terms of the mandate contained
in the said Rule, the requisite communication was required to be
made through post at such address. According to him, the
prescribed procedure was not followed in the present case and,
consequently, the subsequent action taken against the petitioner
on the basis of such alleged service is rendered unsustainable.
13. Adverting to the order passed by the Appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
12/32
Authority, learned Senior Advocate submitted that, despite the
Appellate Authority having acknowledged that, as per the
HRMS data, the petitioner had been sanctioned sick leave on
full-pay basis for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.07.2019 by
the competent authority, the appeal came to be rejected without
properly considering the said material fact. The Appellate
Authority itself acknowledged that the letter dated 22.10.2019
had been sent to the petitioner by registered post at his recorded
address, but the same had been returned undelivered.
Nevertheless, while considering the subsequent notice dated
13.12.2019, whereby the petitioner was informed of the
purported voluntary vacation of service, the Appellate Authority
proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had acknowledged the
said notice on 16.12.2019 when he visited the RBO, Bettiah. On
the same occasion, the petitioner was also served with the letter
dated 22.10.2019, which had earlier been returned undelivered.
14. According to learned Senior Advocate, the
aforesaid sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the
procedure prescribed for invoking the drastic consequence of
voluntary vacation of service was not followed in its true letter
and spirit. The subsequent acknowledgment of the
communications by the petitioner on 16.12.2019, when he
himself reported for duty, could not cure the earlier failure of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
13/32
Bank to effect service in the manner prescribed under the Rules.
It is, therefore, submitted that the entire procedure adopted by
the respondent-authorities was arbitrary and contrary to the
statutory requirements and, consequently, warrants interference
by this Court.
15. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dipak Babaria & Anr. v. State of Gujarat &
Ors., [(2014) 3 SCC 502] , learned Senior Advocate submitted
that where a statute prescribes that a particular thing is to be
done in a particular manner, the same must necessarily be done
in that manner and in no other manner.
16. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision in
Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & Ors., [2014 (3)
PLJR (SC) 451] . It is submitted that, once it was neither the
case of the respondent-Bank nor of the competent authority that
the medical reports and certificates submitted by the petitioner
were false, fabricated or procured for any extraneous
consideration, and in the absence of any material or finding to
that effect, the competent authority could not have discarded or
disbelieved the medical certificates issued by the attending
doctors without assigning any cogent or valid reason.
17. Reference has also been made to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
14/32
Union of India and Another, [(2012) 3 SCC 178] . Relying
upon the said decision, it has been submitted that where absence
from duty is occasioned by compelling circumstances which
render it impossible for an employee to report for or perform his
duties, such absence cannot, merely for want of prior
permission, be treated as wilful absence. Although such absence
may, in a given case, amount to unauthorized absence,
unauthorized absence by itself does not necessarily imply or
establish wilful absence from duty.
18. It is, therefore, submitted that, in the facts of the
present case, where the petitioner’s absence was admittedly on
account of serious medical conditions and was supported by
medical prescriptions and certificates, and where the petitioner
had sufficient leave standing to his credit, the respondent-
authorities acted illegally in treating the period of his medical
absence as wilful absence and in invoking the provisions
relating to voluntary vacation of service against him.
19. Per contra , Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the SBI, controverting the aforesaid
submissions, has vehemently contended that the real reason for
the petitioner proceeding on sick leave was his dissatisfaction
with the posting allotted to him. According to learned Senior
Advocate, the petitioner had sought transfer from Patna Zone to

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
15/32
Muzaffarpur Zone with an expectation that he would eventually
be posted at a branch under the Samastipur Regional Business
Office. However, his request for such choice posting was not
acceded to and, instead, he was transferred to the Regional
Business Office, Bettiah. It is submitted that, rather than joining
at the place of his posting, the petitioner proceeded on leave,
which, prima facie , reflected an act of indiscipline.
20. Learned Senior Advocate for the SBI further
submitted that, despite being fully aware that he had already
been relieved from the Digha Branch, SBI, the petitioner
deliberately submitted his application for sick leave through the
HRMS portal to the Branch Manager, SBI, Digha Branch. The
Branch Manager, SBI, Digha Branch, inadvertently approved
the petitioner’s leave while processing the leave applications of
other employees. According to learned Senior Advocate, the
said fact was subsequently brought to the notice of the
Controlling Authority by the Branch Manager, SBI, Digha
Branch, through an email dated 26.07.2019. It is contended that,
since the purported sanction of sick leave had been granted by
an authority which was not competent to do so, such sanction
could not confer any legal entitlement upon the petitioner. As
the petitioner was required to report at the RBO, Bettiah, and
failed to do so, his request for sick leave was rightly declined by

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
16/32
the competent authority.
21. Mr. Narain, further submitted that, as the
petitioner continued to remain absent from duty, a notice dated
18.09.2019 was issued to him by the competent authority at the
Regional Business Office, Bettiah, at the address recorded by
the petitioner himself in the HRMS portal. It is, therefore,
submitted that the petitioner could not legitimately dispute the
service of the said communication. It is next contended that,
since the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent from
duty with effect from 28.06.2019, the competent authority, in
exercise of the power conferred under Rule 40(3) of the Rules,
st
1992, issued the 1 Notice dated 06.11.2019 calling upon him to
report for duty. The notice specifically stipulated that, in the
event the petitioner failed to report for duty and furnish a
satisfactory explanation for his absence within thirty days, it
would be deemed that he had voluntarily vacated his
employment, amounting to voluntary resignation from service
without giving the requisite notice.
22. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that,
despite receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner did not
report for duty. Instead, he submitted a letter dated 16.10.2019
referring to the earlier communication dated 18.09.2019,
wherein he asserted that his leave had been sanctioned up to

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
17/32
31.07.2019 and requested that his application for sick leave be
considered.
23. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Rajendra Narain,
learned Senior Advocate for the SBI, submitted that, on the one
hand, the petitioner has acknowledged receipt of certain
communications sent to the address recorded in the HRMS
portal, while, on the other hand, he disputes receipt of other
communications sent to the very same address. Such a plea,
according to learned Senior Advocate, cannot be permitted to be
taken selectively and according to the convenience of the
petitioner. It is further argued that, despite his leave having been
subsequently declined by the competent authority, the petitioner
continued to remain absent for more than ninety consecutive
days. Consequently, the Bank, in exercise of its power under
Rule 40(3) of the Rules, 1992, issued the requisite notice at the
petitioner’s last known address available in the records of the
Bank, calling upon him to report for duty within thirty days
from the date of the notice.
24. Notwithstanding the aforesaid notice, the
petitioner failed to report for duty within the stipulated period.
Consequently, in terms of the statutory provision, he was
deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment upon
expiry of the period prescribed in the notice. It is emphatically

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
18/32
contended that there was no violation or transgression of any
procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1992, and the Bank had
acted strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated
under Rule 40(3).
25. According to learned Senior Advocate, the
petitioner’s continued absence, despite repeated
communications and opportunities afforded to him, constituted a
clear case of neglect of duty and indiscipline, leaving the Bank
with no option but to proceed against him under Rule 40(3) of
the Rules, 1992. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was duly
considered by the competent Appellate Authority. Upon
consideration of the materials on record and the grounds urged
by the petitioner, the appeal was found to be devoid of merit and
was accordingly rejected. The Appellate Authority had
considered all relevant aspects of the matter and had passed a
speaking and reasoned order. In such circumstances, the
petitioner had failed to demonstrate any ground warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction
of judicial review.
26. While concluding his submissions, Mr. Rajendra
Narain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the SBI, placed
reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another v. N.R.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
19/32
Vairamani and Another, [(2004) 8 SCC 579] . Relying upon the
said decision, learned Senior Advocate submitted that a judicial
decision cannot be relied upon without examining whether the
factual situation in the case in which the decision was rendered
bears sufficient similarity to the facts of the case under
consideration. According to him, the factual and circumstantial
context of each case assumes significance, and even a single
distinguishing fact may make a substantial difference between
two cases. It is, therefore, submitted that cases ought not to be
decided by placing blind reliance upon precedents without
examining their applicability to the facts and issues arising for
consideration. The decisions relied upon by learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner have no application to the
facts of the present case. According to him, the authorities relied
upon by the petitioner primarily concern cases involving
disciplinary proceedings and the question of wilful absence in
that context, whereas the present case is governed specifically
by Rule 40(3) of the Rules, 1992. Rule 40(3) expressly
empowers the competent authority to treat an officer as having
voluntarily vacated his employment where, despite service of
the requisite notice, he fails to report for duty within the
stipulated period. Therefore, according to learned Senior
Advocate, once the petitioner failed to report for duty within the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
20/32
prescribed period pursuant to the notice issued under Rule
40(3), the consequence contemplated under the said Rule
automatically followed, and the impugned action of the Bank
does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
27. This Court has given its anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocates
appearing for the rival parties and has also perused the materials
available on record as well as the relevant provisions of the
State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992.
28. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to
observe that an employee cannot be treated as a slave and,
ordinarily, has the right to relinquish his employment voluntarily
by tendering his resignation. Equally, however, a prolonged and
unexplained absence from duty may, depending upon the
applicable service rules and the surrounding circumstances,
constitute abandonment of service. While absence from duty for
a short duration may constitute misconduct warranting
appropriate action, continued absence for an extended period
may, where the governing service rules so provide, lead to the
statutory consequence of treating the employee as having
voluntarily abandoned or vacated his employment.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
21/32
decisions, has recognised that where an employee remains
absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind
could be granted, the applicable service rules may provide for
such absence resulting in the employee being treated as having
resigned from service and consequently ceasing to be in
employment. Where the statutory rules themselves provide for
such a consequence upon fulfilment of the prescribed
conditions, a regular departmental enquiry may not necessarily
be required. Reference in this regard may be made to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay S. Sathaye v.
Indian Airlines Limited and Others, [(2013) 10 SCC 253] .
30. In the light of the principles enunciated in the
aforesaid decisions and for dealing with cases of unauthorized
absence from duty or overstaying of leave, the SBI has made
specific provisions in the Rules, 1992. Rules 40(2) and 40(3),
which assume significance in the present context.
31. Rule 40(2), inter alia , provides that an officer who
overstays his leave, except in circumstances beyond his control,
shall not be entitled to any salary or allowance for the period of
such absence without leave and shall also be liable to any of the
penalties specified in rule 67.
32. Rule 40(3) of the Rules, 1992, which is
particularly relevant for the present controversy, contemplates,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
22/32
inter alia , that where an officer, who has not submitted an
application for leave, or where an officer having submitted his
application was refused sanction of leave, absent himself for a
period of 90 or more consecutive days or over stay the
sanctioned leave by 90 or more consecutive days
notwithstanding the provision of Sub-Rule (2), the Bank may, at
any time thereafter, give a notice to the officer at his last known
address available with the Bank, calling upon him to report for
duty within 30 days from the date of such notice. If the Officer
does not report for duty within the stipulated period, he may, by
an order of the Appointing Authority, be deemed to have
voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said
period set out in the notice.
33. Thus, Rule 40(3) incorporates a specific
mechanism for dealing with prolonged absence from duty or
overstaying of sanctioned leave and, upon fulfilment of the
conditions stipulated therein, empowers the Appointing
Authority to treat the officer as having voluntarily vacated his
employment. It is in this backdrop of the aforesaid statutory
scheme that the legality and validity of the action taken against
the petitioner in the present case is required to be examined.
34. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no
dispute with regard to the factual position that, upon his transfer

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
23/32
to the Muzaffarpur Zone and prior to his joining at the Regional
Business Office, Bettiah, the petitioner had sought sick leave for
the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.07.2019. The said leave was
duly approved through the HRMS portal by the Branch
Manager, SBI, Digha Branch, upon consideration of the medical
prescriptions and reports furnished by the petitioner in support
of his request for leave and its subsequent extension.
35. 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, or that the petitioner had
approached such authority with a view to obtaining an undue
advantage, the least that was expected of the respondent-
authorities was to forward the petitioner’s application to the
competent authority for proper consideration of his request for
sick leave.
36. In the present case, once the petitioner was
informed through the HRMS portal that his sick leave had been
approved, there was no reason or occasion for him to submit a
fresh application for the very same period, particularly when the
petitioner was paid his full salary for the said period pursuant to
the approval of his leave.
37. This Court is also at a loss to understand as to how

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
24/32
the application for sick leave could have been rejected merely
on the ground that the authority who had initially approved the
leave was subsequently found to be not competent to do so. The
factum of such approval could not, by itself, constitute a valid
ground for completely discarding the petitioner’s claim for sick
leave without examining the genuineness and bona fides of the
medical grounds on which such leave was sought.
38. The petitioner had produced medical prescriptions
and reports in support of his request for leave. The genuineness
of the said medical documents was never specifically disputed
by the respondent-authorities, nor was any material placed on
record to suggest that the same were forged, fabricated or
otherwise unreliable. In the absence of any such finding or
material, rejection of the petitioner’s request for sick leave
merely on the ground of want of competence on the part of the
authority who had initially approved the leave, without
examining the medical documents produced by the petitioner, in
the considered opinion of this Court, does not withstand the test
of fairness and reasonableness.
39. This Court is conscious of the distinction between
mere absence from duty and wilful or unauthorized absence
from duty. The mere fact that an officer was not physically
present at his place of posting cannot, by itself, lead to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
25/32
conclusion that such absence was wilful, deliberate or without
justification. Before holding an employee to be unauthorizedly
absent from duty, particularly where the absence is claimed on
medical grounds, the appointing or competent authority is
required to consider the reasons furnished by the employee and
the materials placed in support thereof.
40. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that,
where an employee fails to furnish any supporting material for
his absence, or where the medical prescriptions or reports relied
upon by him are found to be fictitious, forged or fabricated,
appropriate action may certainly be taken against him for
unauthorized absence in accordance with law. However, the
position would be materially different where the employee has
produced medical prescriptions, medical reports and,
subsequently, a fitness certificate issued by the treating doctors,
and the genuineness or bona fides of such documents has neither
been specifically disputed nor discredited by any cogent
material.
41. In the present case, the petitioner had admittedly
submitted his application for sick leave along with medical
prescriptions and reports. The medical documents relied upon
by him were never held to be forged or fabricated, nor was any
enquiry undertaken to establish their falsity. The treating doctors

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
26/32
had prescribed medication and subsequently issued a fitness
certificate. In such circumstances, the medical basis of the
petitioner’s absence could not have been brushed aside without
assigning any cogent reason.
42. There is yet another aspect of the matter which
assumes significance. A disputed question of fact arises with
regard to the service of the notices and communications upon
the petitioner at his last known address, as contemplated under
Rule 40(3) of the Rules, 1992.
43. According to the petitioner, the HRMS portal
reflected his last known address as “Nishant Residency, Flat
No.C/101, Fraser Road, Patna-800001”. It is stated that the said
address was duly recorded and renewed by the competent
authority from time to time, lastly up to 31.10.2020. However,
according to the petitioner, none of the impugned notices or
communications was served upon him at the said address.
44. The contention of the petitioner further assumes
significance in view of his assertion that his official email
account, through which the respondent-Bank claims to have
communicated the relevant notices and orders, had already been
blocked by the Bank unilaterally. In such circumstances, the
mere fact that the petitioner responded to one of the
communications and sought extension of his sick leave cannot,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
27/32
by itself, establish that all the notices and communications relied
upon by the Bank were duly and validly served upon the
petitioner in the manner contemplated under Rule 40(3) of the
Rules, 1992.
45. Before invoking the drastic consequence
contemplated under Rule 40(3) of the Rules, 1992, the question
of unauthorized absence or overstaying of leave must
necessarily be examined in the light of the preceding statutory
provision contained in Rule 40(2). Rule 40(2), inter alia ,
provides that an officer who overstays his leave shall not be
entitled to any salary or allowance for the period of such
absence without leave and shall also be liable to any of the
penalties specified in rule 67 of the Rules, 1992.
46. 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.
47. This Court further finds that none of the
competent authorities has assigned any cogent or convincing
reason as to why the medical reports and prescriptions furnished
by the petitioner were not found satisfactory. If the respondent-

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
28/32
authorities entertained any doubt regarding the genuineness or
correctness of the medical reports or prescriptions submitted by
the petitioner, they were expected to have the same verified
through an appropriate mechanism or, if necessary, to have
referred the petitioner for examination by a duly constituted
Medical Board. A mere recital, while declining the petitioner’s
sick leave, that the competent authority was “not satisfied with
the documentary evidence” produced by him, without disclosing
any reason for such dissatisfaction, amounts to an arbitrary
exercise of power and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
48. The Appellate Authority, though having taken note
of the material facts on record, failed to examine the most
material aspect of the matter, namely, what persuaded the
competent authority to decline the petitioner’s sick leave despite
the fact that the leave had earlier been sanctioned through the
HRMS portal and the petitioner had been paid full salary for the
said period. The Appellate Authority also failed to deal with the
specific contention raised by the petitioner in his memo of
appeal regarding non-service of the notices and orders at his last
known recorded address.
49. It is significant to note that, had the petitioner
st
actually received the 1 Notice dated 06.11.2019, there was no
apparent reason for him not to submit an explanation,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
29/32
particularly when he had substantial leave standing to his credit.
According to the petitioner, he had more than 270 days of
earned leave to his credit and was also entitled, under the
applicable service rules, to substantial sick leave. These
circumstances were relevant and ought to have been duly
considered before drawing the drastic consequence of treating
the petitioner as having voluntarily vacated his employment.
50. It needs to be emphasised that conferment of
discretion upon an authority under a statutory rule and the
exercise of such discretion in accordance with the rule are two
distinct aspects. It is well settled that whenever a statutory
authority is vested with discretion, such discretion cannot be
exercised arbitrarily, mechanically or on the basis of extraneous
considerations. The discretion must be exercised objectively,
fairly and upon due consideration of all relevant facts and
materials available on record.
51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Krushnakant B.
Parmar (supra) , particularly in paragraph 17, has observed that
where absence from duty is the result of compelling
circumstances which render it impossible for an employee to
report for or perform his duties, such absence cannot be treated
as wilful absence. Mere absence from duty without an
application for leave or prior permission may constitute

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
30/32
unauthorized absence, but it does not invariably follow that such
absence is wilful. There may be several eventualities on account
of which an employee may be compelled to remain away from
duty, including circumstances beyond his control such as illness,
accident, hospitalization and the like. In such circumstances, an
employee cannot, merely on account of such absence, be held
guilty of lack of devotion to duty or conduct unbecoming of a
government servant.
52. In the present case, this Court has already
recorded a categorical finding that the very basis on which the
petitioner’s application for leave was declined, namely, that the
leave had been approved by an authority who was not
competent to sanction the same, cannot, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, be sustained. The petitioner’s medical
condition and the medical documents furnished by him were not
found to be false, forged or fabricated, nor was their
genuineness otherwise discredited by the respondent-authorities.
53. Consequently, the foundation for treating the
petitioner’s absence as unauthorized absence stood materially
eroded. In such circumstances, the invocation of Rule 40(3) of
the Rules, 1992 against the petitioner, without first properly
determining the nature and status of his leave and without
considering the medical materials furnished by him in their

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
31/32
proper perspective, cannot be sustained.
54. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the light of the discussions made hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the
respondent-Bank and its authorities does not withstand the test
of fairness and reasonableness embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner’s medical grounds for
absence were not considered in their proper perspective, the
basis for rejection of his sanctioned leave was not disclosed by
the competent authority, and the petitioner was not afforded a
fair and meaningful opportunity to explain his alleged
unauthorized absence before the drastic consequence of
voluntary vacation of service was imposed upon him.
55. The impugned action, therefore, also suffers from
violation of the principles of natural justice.
56. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated
06.11.2019 and the consequential notice dated 13.12.2019,
contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition,
as well as the order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the Appellate
Authority, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, are
hereby held to be unsustainable in law and are accordingly
quashed and set aside.
57. Consequently, the respondent-Bank is directed to

Patna High Court CWJC No.8579 of 2020 dt.03-09-2026
32/32
reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service.
58. However, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary or
allowances for the period during which he did not actually
discharge his duties. The said period shall, however, be counted
for the purposes of continuity of service and for all other
consequential service benefits, as admissible in accordance with
the applicable service rules.
59. The writ petition stands allowed.
60. The parties shall bear their own cost(s).

(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05-09-2026
Transmission Date