Patna High Court has ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to reinstate an officer whose service the bank treated as voluntarily resigned after he remained absent on medical grounds. The officer’s sick leave for July 2019 had been approved through the bank’s online HRMS portal by the manager at his previous branch. SBI later rejected the leave, saying the manager was no longer authorised to approve it after the officer’s transfer.
The court found that the bank should have sent the leave application to the appropriate authority for consideration instead of simply rejecting it. It also noted that the officer’s medical documents had not been proved false. Justice Harish Kumar quashed the bank’s orders and directed it to reinstate Pankaj Kumar Singh with continuity of service. However, he will not receive salary for the period he did not work.
What did the SBI officer argue?
Singh joined SBI as a clerk-cum-cashier in 1989 and was later promoted to assistant manager and deputy manager. In March 2019, he requested a transfer from Patna Zone to Muzaffarpur Zone.
The bank relieved him from its Digha branch in Patna on June 24, 2019. He reported to the Muzaffarpur Zone on June 25 and worked there until June 28. On that date, he received a letter placing his services at the disposal of the Regional Business Office in Bettiah, where he was expected to report for his posting.
Singh said he was diagnosed with acute jaundice and advised complete rest. He applied for medical leave from July 1 to July 31 through SBI’s HRMS portal. The Digha branch manager approved the leave, and Singh received his full salary for that month.
However, Singh did not report to the Regional Business Office in Bettiah after receiving his posting. SBI later said the Digha branch manager had approved his leave by mistake while processing other employees’ applications. The manager reportedly informed the bank’s controlling authority about the approval through an email dated July 26, 2019.
Singh also said he developed severe leg pain and was treated by an orthopaedic surgeon from October 17. He was advised to rest until the middle of December. According to his account, he was declared medically fit on December 14 and reported to the Regional Business Office in Bettiah on December 16, 2019.
What did SBI say?
On October 22, 2019, SBI rejected Singh’s leave and treated his absence from June 29 as unauthorised. The bank said it was not satisfied with the medical documents he had submitted.
On November 6, SBI issued a notice asking him to report for duty and explain his absence within 30 days. It warned that if he failed to do so, he would be treated as having voluntarily left his job.
On December 13, the bank declared that Singh had voluntarily vacated his service with effect from December 7. It also demanded an amount equivalent to three months’ salary.
Singh challenged the decision, but his appeal was rejected in June 2020. He then approached the Patna High Court.
SBI argued that Singh was unhappy with his Bettiah posting and had taken sick leave rather than joining there. It also maintained that the Digha branch manager did not have the authority to approve his leave after his transfer.
Singh argued that he had been genuinely ill, had submitted medical records and had received formal approval for his July leave through HRMS.
What did Patna High Court say?
The court said that even if the Digha branch manager was not authorised to approve the leave, SBI should have forwarded Singh’s application to the appropriate authority instead of rejecting it without properly examining his medical condition.
The judge noted that Singh had been informed through HRMS that his leave was approved and had received his full salary for July. His medical prescriptions and reports had not been proved to be fake or fabricated.
If SBI doubted the documents, it could have verified them or asked Singh to undergo an examination by a medical board. Instead, it rejected the medical evidence without giving convincing reasons.
The court also said that absence from work does not automatically mean an employee deliberately refused to perform his duties. Illness or other circumstances beyond an employee’s control may prevent attendance. The bank had to examine the reasons for the absence before taking the drastic step of treating Singh as having quit.
What did the court order?
Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court in an order dated September 4, 2026, cancelled SBI’s notices dated November 6 and December 13, 2019, and the order rejecting Singh’s appeal. It directed the bank to reinstate him with continuity of service.
However, Singh will not receive salary or allowances for the period during which he did not actually work. That period will count towards continuity of service and other benefits available under the applicable rules.
The court allowed Singh’s petition and directed both sides to bear their own legal costs.