The Patna High Court has ruled that mere absence from duty cannot by itself be treated as wilful or unauthorised absence, particularly when an employee provides medical records to support the absence.
This is a very important judgement related to bank employees. The case is related to a bank employee.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a petition filed by a State Bank of India (SBI) officer challenging notices through which the bank had treated him as having voluntarily vacated his service after he failed to report for duty.
The petitioner had joined SBI in 1989 and had completed more than 30 years of service. He was transferred from the Digha Branch in Patna to the Muzaffarpur Zone in June 2019 and was later placed at the disposal of the Regional Business Office in Bettiah.
The employee said that he was suffering from acute jaundice and had been advised complete rest for at least 45 days. His application for sick leave from July 1 to July 31, 2019 was approved through the bank’s HRMS portal.
He later developed severe pain in his legs and consulted an orthopaedic surgeon. The doctor advised him to take further rest until December 2019.
The bank subsequently declined the leave and treated his absence from June 29, 2019 onwards as unauthorised. It issued a notice under Rule 40(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, directing him to report for duty within 30 days. The notice stated that failure to report would result in him being deemed to have voluntarily vacated his office.
A second notice dated December 13, 2019 declared that the employee had voluntarily vacated his service with effect from December 7, 2019.
The High Court examined Rule 40 of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules. It noted that Rule 40(2) deals with an officer overstaying leave and allows the bank to take appropriate action. Rule 40(3), subject to certain conditions, allows prolonged absence to be treated as voluntary vacation of service.
However, the court said that the severe consequence under Rule 40(3) could not be imposed without first determining whether the employee’s absence was actually unauthorised or amounted to overstaying leave.
The court made a distinction between simple absence from duty and wilful or unauthorised absence. It observed that merely because an employee was not physically present at the place of posting, it could not automatically be concluded that the absence was deliberate or without justification.
The court said that when an employee claims to be absent because of medical reasons, the competent authority must consider the reasons given by the employee and examine the medical documents submitted in support of the claim.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had submitted medical prescriptions and reports. The bank had not specifically disputed or established that these medical documents were not genuine.
The court also observed that even if the initial leave approval had been granted by an authority that was not competent to sanction it, the bank should have forwarded the leave application to the competent authority for consideration. It could not simply treat the entire period of absence as unauthorised.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar. The court noted that absence caused by compelling circumstances such as illness, an accident or hospitalisation cannot automatically be considered wilful absence or a lack of devotion to duty.
The court held that the bank’s action did not meet the requirements of fairness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. It also found a violation of the principles of natural justice because the employee was not given a fair and meaningful opportunity to explain his alleged unauthorised absence before the serious consequence of voluntary vacation of service was imposed.
