1 CGHC010542892025 2026:CGHC:32065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14138 of 2025 Bharat Bhushan Sahu S/o Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Lakshminiwas, Gokulpur, District- Dhamtari C.G.- 493773. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Regional Manager, RBO Kanker, Having Office At Regional Business Office, R-4, City Centre Mall, 1st Floor, Near New Bus Stand, District Kanker C.G. 2 - Regional Manager, RBO Kanker, State Bank Of India, Having Office At Regional Business Office, R-4, City Centre Mall, 1st Floor, Near New Bus Stand, District Kanker C.G. 3 - Appointing Authority, General Manager (NW-III), State Bank Of India, Having Office At Local Head Office, Hoshangabad Road, District Bhopal, M.P. 4 - Deputy General Manager, Appeals And Review, State Bank Of India, Having Office At Appeals And Review Department, Corporate Centre, 8th Floor, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, District Mumbai, Maharashtra. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.28 17:34:50 +0530 2 5 - Appellate Committee, State Bank Of India, Having Office At Local Head Office, Hoshangabad Road, District Bhopal, M.P. 6 - Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India, SBLC Indore, Having Office At State Bank Learning Centre, 13 Manikbagh Road, District- Indore, M.P. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 06.04.2024, which has been communicated to him vide letter dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure-P/6), whereby he has been treated as having voluntarily vacated service, as well as the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 communicated vide letter dated 23.09.2025 affirming the said order. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to permit him to resume duties with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as an Assistant Clerk and was subsequently promoted to the post of MMGS-II Officer, has challenged the order dated 06.04.2024, whereby he has been deemed to have voluntarily vacated service under Rule 40(3) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (for short, 3 "the Rules of 1992"), as well as the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 affirming the same. He submits that the petitioner remained absent from duty on account of suffering from Schizophrenia Undifferentiated, due to which he was medically incapacitated from reporting for duty. Despite informing the respondent authorities and requesting grant of medical leave, the respondents, without holding any departmental enquiry and without considering the petitioner's medical condition and supporting records, passed the impugned orders in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. It is contended that the proviso to Rule 40(3) specifically requires the appellate authority to consider cases where an employee is prevented from joining duty due to sickness or any other sufficient cause; however, the petitioner's appeal was rejected without proper application of mind. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to resume service with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/Bank, opposing the submissions made by the petitioner, submits that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 14.11.2023 and, despite repeated communications and notices issued under Rule 40(3) of the Rules of 1992, neither reported for duty nor submitted any satisfactory explanation or supporting medical documents during the relevant period. It is submitted that the petitioner merely sought time to furnish medical records but failed to produce any 4 medical certificate before the competent authority or even before the Appellate Authority. The medical prescriptions and documents relating to his alleged ailment were produced for the first time before this Court and, therefore, the Appellate Authority was justified in not taking into consideration material which was never placed before it. It is further submitted that the impugned order of voluntary vacation of service as well as the appellate order have been passed strictly in accordance with Rule 40(3) of the Rules of 1992, after granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner, and therefore no interference is called for in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of Rule 40(3) of the Rules of 1992 makes it clear that an officer, against whom an order of voluntary vacation of service has been passed, is entitled to prefer an appeal before the competent authority. The proviso to Rule 40(3) further casts a duty upon the appellate authority to examine whether the officer was prevented from reporting for duty due to sickness incapacitating him from joining duties within the prescribed period or for any other sufficient cause and, if satisfied, to rescind the order of voluntary vacation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. In the present case, the specific case of the petitioner before the appellate authority was that he remained absent from duty on account of suffering from Schizophrenia Undifferentiated, which 5 medically incapacitated him from reporting for duty. Though the respondents have contended that the petitioner had not produced the relevant medical records before the competent authority and that such documents were placed on record for the first time before this Court, the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 does not disclose any consideration of the petitioner's plea regarding sickness as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 40(3) of the Rules of 1992. There is no finding recorded by the appellate authority either accepting or rejecting the petitioner's plea of medical incapacity, nor does the order reflect any satisfaction or dissatisfaction with regard to the existence of sufficient cause for his absence. The appellate authority was required to independently examine the petitioner's explanation and arrive at a reasoned conclusion in terms of Rule 40(3), which has not been done. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The appellate authority shall reconsider the petitioner's appeal strictly in accordance with Rule 40(3) of the Rules of 1992, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as an opportunity to produce all relevant medical records and other supporting documents in support of his plea of medical incapacity. A reasoned and 6 speaking order shall be passed, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and all questions are left open to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar