The Patna High Court has overturned the State Bank of India's decision to treat a sick officer's absence as a voluntary resignation, emphasizing that employees cannot be treated as slaves.
- Patna High Court ordered the reinstatement of an SBI Deputy Manager forced into 'voluntary resignation'.
- The court ruled that the bank ignored genuine medical documents and denied a fair hearing.
- The officer gets continuity of service, though no back-pay for the period of absence.
In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court has reinstated an SBI officer who was declared to have voluntarily resigned after failing to report to duty due to prolonged illness. The court observed that the State Bank of India (SBI) acted unfairly by ignoring medical evidence and failing to provide a reasonable opportunity for the employee to explain his absence.
Justice Harish Kumar, presiding over the case, noted that an employee cannot be treated as a "slave". While the court acknowledged that unexplained absence can constitute abandonment of service, it emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the officer's health were critical and overlooked by the bank.
Chronology of the Case
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Singh, joined SBI in November 1989 as a clerk and rose through the ranks to become a Deputy Manager by 2011. In June 2019, while posted in the Muzaffarpur Zone, he was diagnosed with acute jaundice and advised 45 days of bed rest. He applied for leave via the bank's HRMS portal, which he believed was sanctioned.
During his recovery, he developed severe leg pain and was admitted to a private clinic from October 17 until mid-December 2019. Upon reporting for duty on December 16, he was shocked to find that his leave had been declined and he had been termed as having "voluntarily vacated" his service effective December 7.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this case highlights a systemic issue within large corporate entities where rigid adherence to HR protocols often overrides basic human rights and medical emergencies. By ruling in favor of the employee, the court has reinforced the principle of 'Natural Justice', ensuring that administrative power is not used arbitrarily to terminate long-term employees.
"This ruling serves as a warning to employers that medical exigencies cannot be dismissed as indiscipline without a fair inquiry."
The court highlighted that the officer had over 270 days of earned and sick leave available. The bank's failure to disclose why the leave was rejected, despite the genuineness of the medical documents, rendered the termination illegal.
| Perspective | Core Argument |
|---|---|
| SBI Bank | Absence for over 90 consecutive days constitutes neglect of duty. |
| The Officer | Absence was involuntary, caused by acute illness and documented medical rest. |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Will the officer receive salary for the period he was absent?
No, the court specified that while he will receive continuity of service and related benefits, he will not be paid salary or allowances for the period he did not actually work.
The court found that the bank did not act reasonably, ignored valid medical certificates, and denied the officer a meaningful opportunity to explain his absence.
