The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility for pensionary benefits under Regulation 22, the impact of suspension and absence without leave on pensionable service, and the remittance of the decision on the date of removal back to the bank's competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

C.R. Dash, J.

1. The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, was removed from service before he attained 50 years of age. He, in this writ application, has claimed pensionary benefits and gratuity on the ground that, he has rendered service for 30 years 9 months and 25 days in the State Bank of India by the time of his removal from service.

2. The petitioner joined as Messenger in the State Bank of India on 21.08.1971. The appointment was on daily wage basis, however, without any break. On getting through an interview, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis as a Messenger on 17.02.1973. Subsequently, he got promotion as a Record Keeper, served for some time in Cuttack City Branch of the State Bank of India and was transferred to Baliguda Branch in the district of Phulbani. On 14.05.1987, the petitioner was suspended from service and a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against him. Pending finalization of the Disciplinary Proceeding, the suspension order was revoked on 22.07.1989. On 17.03.1998, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and on 09.03.2000 vide Annexure-5, petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner preferred appeal. The appeal was disposed of vide Annexure-6 confirming the order of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer passed the following order:-

“(i) The petitioner should be removed from service.

(ii) The period of suspension not to be counted as duty.

(iii) The amount of loss sustained by the Bank in this case is to be recovered from the petitioner’s terminal benefit.”

The relevant portion of the appellate order reads as follows:-

“….. I do not find any substantial material to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the appellant from Bank’s service is hereby upheld.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the stand that the petitioner having come to the service of the Bank, though as a daily wager with effect from 21.08.1971, his service from 21.08.1971 till 17.02.1973 be reckoned towards his pension. The suspension period should be treated as duty, as the appelalte authority has only confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service without whispering a word about the effect of the suspension period.

4. The date of removal of the petitioner from service is itself ambiguous, as there is no clear indication about the date of removal of the petitioner from service. It is not clear whether the date of removal of the petitioner is “23.03.2000” or it is “26.11.2001” as on 26.11.2001 the petitioner was still serving in Bhitar Andhari Branch of the State Bank of India in the district of Jagatsinghpur, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit and has taken the plea that the petitioner’s total period of service is 24 years and 22 days after excluding the suspension period and other statutory deduction from total period of petitioner’s service of 26 years and 7 months.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (Dead) through L.Rs. & another, AIR 2014 SC 915, to substantiate the contention that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or Provident Fund and gratuity.

7. On reading of Paragraphs-13, 14 & 15 of the aforesaid Judgment, it is found as follows:-

“From a plain reading of Regulation 22 it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided under Chapter II of the Regulation whereas Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in terms of Article 14 of the Reg