Rule 40(3) cannot deem voluntary vacation without fairly determining unauthorized absence and considering medical grounds.

The petitioner, a State Bank of India officer with over thirty years of service, was transferred from the Digha Branch, Patna, to the Muzaffarpur Zone and was subsequently placed at the disposal of the Regional Business Office, Bettiah.

He applied for sick leave on account of jaundice and related medical conditions.

The leave for 1 July 2019 to 31 July 2019 was approved through the Bank’s HRMS portal, and the petitioner was paid salary for that period.

The Bank later treated the petitioner’s absence from 29 June 2019 as unauthorised, stating that the leave had been approved by an incompetent authority and that the medical documents were unsatisfactory.

A notice dated 6 November 2019 was issued under Rule 40(3) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, requiring the petitioner to report for duty and explain his absence within thirty days, failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment.

By notice dated 13 December 2019, the Bank declared that the petitioner had voluntarily vacated service with effect from 7 December 2019.

The petitioner, who claimed to have been medically unfit until 13 December 2019, reported for duty on 16 December 2019 and challenged the notices.

His appeal was rejected on 24 June 2020.

Whether the Bank was justified in treating the petitioner’s medical absence as unauthorised and invoking Rule 40(3) to deem him to have voluntarily vacated his employment, despite the prior approval of leave through HRMS and the medical materials produced by him?

Whether the statutory conditions and procedural requirements under Rule 40(3), including service of notice at the petitioner’s last known address and a meaningful opportunity to explain his absence, were satisfied?

Whether the impugned notices and appellate order were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and the principles of natural justice?

The Court applied Rules 40(2) and 40(3) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992.

Rule 40(2) permits consequences for overstaying leave, while Rule 40(3) permits the Bank, after an officer remains absent for ninety or more consecutive days, to issue notice at the officer’s last known address requiring him to report within thirty days; failure to do so may result in an order deeming the officer to have voluntarily vacated employment.

The Court held that Rule 40(3) can be invoked only after the authority properly determines that the absence is unauthorised or constitutes overstaying of leave.

It relied on Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd., holding that statutory rules may provide for cessation of service upon prolonged absence.

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, holding that absence caused by compelling circumstances such as illness is not necessarily wilful absence.

Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank, concerning the need to properly assess medical certificates where their genuineness is not disproved.

Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, for the principle that a statutory procedure must be followed in the prescribed manner.

The Court also applied Article 14, requiring statutory discretion to be exercised fairly, reasonably, and non-arbitrarily, together with the principles of natural justice.

The Court found that the petitioner’s sick leave had been approved through the HRMS portal and that he had received full salary for the relevant period.

Even if the initial approval had been granted by an incompetent authority, that circumstance did not justify outright rejection of the leave without forwarding the application to the competent authority or examining the medical claim on its merits.

The medical prescriptions, reports, and fitness certificate were not found to be forged, fabricated, or otherwise unreliable; nor did the Bank verify them or refer the petitioner for examination by a Medical Board.

The Court held that the Bank’s bare statement that it was “not satisfied” with the documents was unsupported by reasons and amounted to arbitrary decision-making.

Since the foundation for treating the absence as unauthorised was defective, the precondition for invoking Rule 40(3) was not established.

The Court also noted the unresolved dispute regarding service of the first notice at the petitioner’s last known address and held that subsequent receipt of communications on 16 December 2019 did not necessarily cure the earlier procedural defect.

The petitioner had therefore not been afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to explain his absence before the drastic consequence of deemed voluntary vacation was imposed.

The Bank was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service.

However, he was denied salary and allowances for the period during which he did not actually perform duties; that period was to count for continuity of service and other admissible consequential benefits under the applicable service rules.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.