An employee removed from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled to those benefits if otherwise eligible under the Regulations.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. State Bank of India through its officers have challenged the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2018 passed in W.P No.34722(W) of 2013 by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the appellants to take steps for releasing the pensionary benefit in favour of the respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of such judgment.

2. The respondent No.1 as writ petitioner filed W.P No.34722(W) of 2013 stating, inter alia, that he joined service in the State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch in the subordinate cadre on 6th August, 1979. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant (Accounts) in the State Bank. In course of his service, he was posted in different branches of the bank and while he was working at Fort William Branch, Calcutta, he received a letter to show cause, vide letter baring No.Br.17-111 dated 22nd January, 2002 why disciplinary action would not be taken against him for certain irregularities, and/or forgery allegedly committed by him in course of his official duties. The respondent no.1 denied all the allegations levelled against him in writing on 23rd March, 2002. However, on 27th September 2002, the controlling authority of the respondent No.1, viz, appellant No.3 herein, initiated disciplinary action against the respondent No.1 by issuing a charge-sheet on different counts. The disciplinary authority suspended him from service with effect from 23rd May, 2002 pending disciplinary proceeding. On culmination of disciplinary proceeding, the respondent No.1 was proposed to be punished with removal from service together with superannuation benefits, i.e, pension, provident fund and/or gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations, prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. Against the said order, he preferred a departmental appeal which, however, yielded no result.

3. Challenging the order of punishment, the respondent No.1 filed W.P No.4389(W) of 2005 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated 29th July, 2009. The said order was also unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent No.1 in F.M.A No.680 of 2010.

4. In the second round of litigation, the respondent No.1 by filing W.P 34722(W) of 2013 has alleged that though he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority with superannuation benefits, viz, pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment, the Assistant General Manager (HR), State Bank of India by a letter dated 22nd March, 2012 rejected his prayer for grant of pension on the ground that he did not fulfil the criteria as mentioned in Rule 22(I)(a) and 22(I)(d) of the SBI Pension Fund Rules. The said communication was impugned in the above numbered writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (1) through Legal Representative and Another reported in (2014) 3 WBLR (SC) 444 was pleased to allow the writ petition and directed the bank to release pensionary benefits in favour of the respondent No.1 within a period of three months.

6. In the case of S.K.Kool (Supra), the employee of the appellant-Bank had suffered the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment. The bank, however, had refused to grant leave encashment and pensionary benefits relying upon regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, which reads as follows:-

“22. Forfeiture of Service.- (1)Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.”

The appellant bank urged before the Supre