APHC010115262004 Bench Sr.No:-19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18564 of 2004 N. Subramanyam, ...Petitioner Vs.

State Bank of India, Hyd., Rep Chief G.M. and ...Respondent(s)

others **********

Advocate for Petitioner: V PADMANABHA RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 19th February 2026

ORDER:

Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“(i) to declare the proceedings of the disciplinary authority proceedings No.DPC/TPT/VIG/085, dated 27.3.2001 insofar as treating period of suspension from 1.12.1998 to the date of issuance of proceedings No.DPC/TPT/VIG/085, dated 27.3.2001 as not on duty is irrational and consequently direct the respondent to treat the above period of suspension as pensionable Service for payment of pension in terms of State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, 1955, (ii) to declare proceedings No.04187-23-23, dated

16.8.2004 in so far as denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, and (iii) consequently, direct the respondents to release the pension treating that the petitioner has put in 20 years of pensionable service and pass such other orders.”

2. (a) Petitioner, while working as Branch Manager at Somasila Project Area, on account of certain irregularities, was proceeded with disciplinary action. He was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 30.11.1998 and thereafter, was issued charge memo dated 10.12.1999 alleging that he had sanctioned/renewed loans to various individuals despite the Zonal Office intimating him of withdrawing the discretionary powers so conferred on him. Besides that, the loans stated to have been disbursed without verifying the title documents, eligibility and insufficient collateral security being offered by the respective borrowers.

(b) The petitioner stated to have submitted explanation refuting the charges and eventually, inquiry came to be conducted. The Inquiry Officer ultimately found that charges 1, 3, 6 and 7 came to be proved and the other charges proved partly. Based on the same, petitioner was imposed punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 27.03.2001. In the very same proceedings, the period of suspension from 01.12.1998 till date of removal has been treated to be not on duty, therefore, petitioner was found not eligible for any payment except the amount paid by way of subsistence allowance.

(c) Order of removal came to be challenged before appellate authority and the same ended in dismissal by proceedings dated 19.06.2002. Eventually, petitioner has made claims on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc., of which only Provident Fund and Gratuity came to be paid. Pension claim came to be rejected by proceedings dated 16.08.2004 on the ground that petitioner has not completed 20 years of pensionable service in terms of the Rules applicable to the officers.

(d) In that view of the matter, petitioner preferred present writ petition challenging the orders of disciplinary authority to the extent of treating suspension period as not to be on duty and also denying the benefit of pension by impugned proceedings dated 16.08.2004 to be illegal and arbitrary and consequently for appropriate directions to extend aforesaid benefits.

3. The respondent bank has filed detailed counter opposing the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for respondents.

5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner while reiterating the averments of the affidavit filed in support of writ petition contended that the impunged order of disciplinary authority dated 27.03.2001, by which the period of suspension from 01.12.1998 to the date of issuance of said order was treated to be not on duty, by itself being a punishment since was not preceded by any prior show-cause notice, the order to that extent woul