State Bank of India and 1 vs Natvarlal L. Bhatti

Honourable Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai

We have heard Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned Counsel for the appellants. The respondent has been discharged from service after serving the bank for almost 19 years as the bank has condoned the misconduct committed by the respondent and discharged him and during the suspension period, full salary was paid to him. The respondent claimed pension, which was refused by the appellants. The refusal was challenged by the respondent before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8528 of 2001. The writ petition was allowed on 03/08/2012 by the learned Single Judge and the bank was directed to count the period of suspension from 05/05/1992 to 10/11/1997 as part of his qualifying service for the purpose for computing the pension payable to the respondent. The reasons for awarding the pension are mentioned in Para 19 of the judgment, which is extracted below:

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner served the Bank for almost 19 years, and also taking into consideration the fact that the authority concerned thought fit to condone the misconduct and discharge the petitioner from service, coupled with the fact that during the period of suspension full salary was being paid to the petitioner and the petitioner also contributed 5% of his salary to the fund during the period of suspension, the period of suspension deserves to be included as part of his qualifying service for the purpose of computing the pension payable to the petitioner, I am not touching the issue as to whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 10.11.1997 discharging the petitioner from service deserves to be set aside or not, in the light of the view which I have taken, so far as the period of suspension as part of his qualifying service is concerned.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the observations made by the learned Single Judge that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-respondent herein is incorrect and on that basis, the learned Single Judge has awarded pension, which is also incorrect as opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner-respondent herein. From the record of the writ petition as well as this Letters Patent Appeal, we do not find any document showing that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent herein before passing order of punishment. Further, we do not find that for not counting the period of suspension to be computed in the period of pension, any Show-cause notice was issued by the appellants. In absence of any material showing that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent herein, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error directing that the period of suspension should be counted towards pensionable service and on that basis the pension of the respondent herein be worked out, especially, in view of the fact that misconduct was condoned by the appellants and full salary during the period of suspension was paid.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in this Letters Patent Appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.