Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. Various reliefs have been sought for in this writ application but when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Shivendra Kishore confines the writ application to the relief of quashing the order dated 11,6.2001 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner has been informed that he is not eligible for pension under the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the period of suspension till reinstatement i.e. 19.2.1932 to first week of April, 1988 and 23.5.1989 to 10.5.1999 as pensionable service.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I with the respondent-State Bank of India. A criminal case was instituted against him on 1.2.1982 and was put under suspension by order dated 19.2.1982. Later on, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and memo of charges served by order dated 29.12.1982 and ultimately by order dated 30.7.1986 he was removed from service. The order of the disciplinary authority of removal dated 30th of July, 1986 states as follows:

"I, therefore, inflict upon you the penalty of "removal from service" with immediate effect in terms of Rule 49 (g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. I also order that the period spent by you under suspension be treated as one of absence from duty, i.e. you would not be entitled to any salary and allowances other than the subsistence allowance already paid to you."

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority in its meeting held on 12th of December, 1987 decided to modify the punishment in the following words:

"The Board has considered the appeal of Shri S.P.Singh against the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of "removal from service" in terms of Rule 49 (g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, along with the other related papers. The Board feels that the aforesaid penalty is unduly harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against Shri Singh, and, therefore, resolved that the order of the Disciplinary Authority be and is, hereby modified and Shri Singh be inflicted the penalty of reduction in time scale to the lowest stage in Junior Management Grade Scale-1 in terms of Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The Board also resolved that the "period from the date Shri Singh was placed under suspension to the date of his re-joining his duties be treated as one under suspension, i.e. he shall be entitled to only subsistence allowance for the entire period."

(Underlining mine)

4 In view of aforesaid order of the appellate authority petitioner was reinstated in service and joined some time in the first week of April, 1988.

5. As stated earlier, a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner and the trial court by its judgment dated 27.3.1989 convicted him of the charges. Thereafter by order dated 23.5.1989 petitioner was suspended and later on by order dated 11.11.1989 on account of his conviction he was dismissed from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction also failed.. However, petitioner succeeded in the revision application preferred before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 16th of March, 1988 passed in Criminal Revision No. 392 of 1991 allowed the revision application, set aside the order of conviction and acquitted him of the charge. While doing so this Court observed as follows:

"Before parting with the records of this case, however, I would like to make it clear that the petitioner in this case has been given the benefit of a very thin doubt and his acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, would have no effect on any disciplinary proceeding that