APHC010115262004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18564 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-19 [3506] N. Subramanyam, ...Petitioner Vs. State Bank of India, Hyd., Rep Chief G.M. and others ...Respondent(s) ********** 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 2 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 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 3 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 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 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 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 would be in violation of principles of natural justice. (b) He further contended that, in terms of Rule 68(8)(ii) of SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992, the disciplinary authority has been mandated to issue prior notice to the petitioner in case it purports to deal with the period of suspension in any manner prejudicial to interest of petitioner and as no such notice was issued, the impugned order of disciplinary authority to that extent requires to be set aside. (c) He further contends that the claim of petitioner for pension has been rejected on the ground that he has not completed 20 5 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 years of pensionable service, which is contrary to Rule 22 of SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules. Inasmuch as Rule 22 merely envisaged that one should have completed 20 years of pensionable service and have attained the age of 50 years, there should not be any embargo for extending pensionary benefits to the petitioner. (d) Finally, he urged to allow the writ petition accordingly. 6. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supporting the impugned orders of punishment dated 27.03.2001 and as well as the proceedings dated 16.08.2004, by which the pensionary benefits came to be denied, vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner. It is argued that firstly in the absence of any further challenge to the punishment order as confirmed by appellate authority, petitioner cannot in isolation lay a challenge to the portion of punishment order insofar as treating the suspension period to be not on duty. The said portion of the order, in the submission of respondents, should have to be treated as integral to the substantive disciplinary proceedings, therefore, it cannot be looked in isolation. 6 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 (b) Secondly, it is also argued that Rule 22 of Pension Rules clearly mandated that for one to claim pension under the said Rules, should meet the twin requirements i.e., completion of 20 years pensionable service and secondly that such person should have attained the age of 50 years in terms of Rule 21(1)(a) or one should have completed 25 years of pensionable service with no age restriction in terms of Rule 21(1)(d). As petitioner, on the date of removal of service, was admittedly below 50 years, would not therefore satisfy the twin requirements under Rule 22(1)(a) for being eligible to claim pension. In that view of the matter, respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. (c) In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava1. 7. I have gone through the material on record and examined the substantive arguments advanced. 8. Petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and ultimately came to be removed from service by impugned punishment order dated 27.03.2001. By the said order, the disciplinary authority not only removed petitioner from service but 1 (2021) 2 SCC 612 7 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 also held that period of suspension from 30.11.1998 till the date of removal order coming into force be treated as not on duty. 9. It is the contention of petitioner that had disciplinary authority given effect to dismissal order w.e.f., 04.04.2001, and counted the period of suspension to be on duty, petitioner would have been entitled for pensionary benefits. That apart, the said punishment, since was not preceded with any notice, would be in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. I have gone through Rule 68(8)(iii) of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. Nowhere, the said Rule even remotely suggests that the respondents have to issue yet another notice for the purpose of treating the period of suspension in any manner in case the delinquent is being subjected to dismissal. On the other hand, the Rule merely envisages that in case the delinquent officer has not been subjected to penalty of dismissal, the disciplinary authority was given leeway to deal with the period spent under suspension for the purpose of fixing pay and allowances. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner on this aspect is completely unfounded. 8 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 11. In the judgment relied on by learned counsel for respondent, though it deals about the scope of judicial review in the case of departmental enquiries, also take cognizance of factual scenario. In the facts and circumstances of that case whereunder in pursuance to the substantive disciplinary proceedings the delinquent officer has not only been removed from service but also the period spent on account of suspension was declined to be treated on duty and thereby denied salary and allowances except for the subsistence allowance already paid. 12. The very nature of disciplinary proceedings culminating into punishment of dismissal would take within itself even the aspect of dealing with period of suspension, as the same would be integral to the substantive proceedings, hence issuance of second notice is neither contemplated nor can be read into the Rules. 13. Coming to the claim of petitioner regarding denial of pensionary benefits, Rule 21(1)(a) is very much clear and there is any amount of ambiguity that one should pass the muster of completing not only 20 years of pensionable service but should also have crossed the age of 50 years in terms of Rule 21(1)(a). Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner failed to satisfy the first 9 CGR, J W.P. No.18564 of 2004 requirement as he fell short of the age of 50 years. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim for the pensionary benefits and rightly, the respondents have rejected his case. Hence, I see no merit in the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss