STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. K V BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants/Respondents (Bank) have preferred the instant Writ Appeal as against the order dated 23.01.2009 in W.P.No.1511 of 2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in W.P.No.1511 of 2007 dated 23.01.2009, has, among other things, observed that 'the next question to be considered is period of dismissal viz., 31.12.1997 to 16.11.2000. Rule 21(i) does not contemplate consideration of dismissal and thereafter, reinstatement. Only on proved charges, the punishment of discharge from service was imposed. Again to treat this period of dismissal viz., 31.12.1997 to 16.11.2000 without back wages and break in service would amount to double punishment. It may be that the Petitioner may not be entitled to the salary during the period of dismissal, but when the Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated, the same cannot be treated as break in service. When the Petitioner was reinstated, Respondents Bank was not justified in excluding the period of dismissal from 31.12.1997 to 16.11.2000 for reckoning the pensionable service or treating it as break in service. In my considered view, the period of dismissal from 31.12.1997 to 16.11.2000 has to be taken into account for continuity of service and as pensionable service' and resultantly, allowed the Writ Petition in part and directed the Appellants Bank to take into account the period of dismissal from 31.12.1997 to 16.11.2000 as pensionable service of the Respondent/Petitioner for calculating the pension and further directed to refix the pension amount by including the dismissal period and in other respects, dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Bank urges before this Court that the directions of the Learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2009 in W.P.No.1511 of 2007, in directing the Appellants/Bank to take into account the period of dismissal from 31.12.1997 to 16.11.2000 as pensionable service for calculating the pension and also to refix the pension amount by including the dismissal period, are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case on hand.