Dismissal from service leads to a break in qualifying service for pension, which cannot be counted unless expressly ordered upon reinstatement.

O R D E R:

It is the case of petitioner that while he was working in respondent bank, he was convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment in a Criminal Complaint (CC) No. 28 of 1992 under Section 498A IPC. by learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. Aggrieved by the sentence, he is stated to have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1995 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division at Eluru. Pending Appeal, sentence of imprisonment was suspended vide Crl.M.P.No. 1757 of 1995 dated 09.11.1995. Consequent to conviction, petitioner was dismissed from bank's service on 04.01.1996 as per Regulation 29(3) (a) of Chapter-4 of Manjeera Grameena Bank Staff Regulations, 1983 read with Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act , 1949. Petitioner challenged the above said order of dismissal by filing Writ Petition No. 704 of 1996 during pendency of Criminal Appeal filed by him. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 23.01.1996 directing the Bank to continue petitioner in service. Thereafter, respondent Bank filed Writ Appeal No. 282 of 1996 against the order dated 23.01.1996 which was allowed on 02.04.1996 stating that suspension of sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction and upheld his dismissal. Subsequently, Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1995 was dismissed whereupon, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Case No. 859 of 1999 in which permission was accorded for compounding the offence and thereafter Revision was disposed of acquitting petitioner of the said offence. In view of this acquittal, petitioner made representation to respondent Bank for reinstating him into service for which, respondent Bank rejected his representation as petitioner was not absolved of the criminal charges but the offence had been compounded on the basis of compromise entered into between him and his wife. Aggrieved by the above decision, petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 22505 of 2005 in which this Court on 18.10.2005, gave an interim direction for reinstatement. Petitioner was reinstated into service on 03.11.2005 and Writ Petition No. 22505 of 2005 was finally disposed on 17.08.2010 as under:

" Since the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, Regulation 29(2)(a) has no application for consideration of regularization of the period for which he was out of employment. The said Regulation has application only in case where an employee was suspended from service and not been convicted by any Court of law. In the present case, Regulation 29(3)(a)(b) and (4) is applicable, since this is a case where petitioner was dismissed from service on the conviction recorded by the criminal Court initially, which was set aside and petitioner was acquitted of the charge at a later point of time. Therefore, it is for the management to decide as to what benefits the petitioner is entitled for in a contingency of this nature, after considering his representation, under the above said regulations. In view of the same, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-management to consider the case of the petitioner under Regulation 29(4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations, 1983 of the Manjira Grameena Bank and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs."

2. Respondent - Bank avers that the above order clearly settles the issue in question relating to granting of benefits for which petitioner is entitled, to be considered by the Bank as per Regulation 29(4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations, 1983 of Manjira Grameena Bank. Thus, respondent Bank shall decide the entitlement for granting benefits to petitioner only as per