JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. 1. The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, was removed from service before he attained 50 years of age. He, in this writ application, has claimed pensionary benefits and gratuity on the ground that, he has rendered service for 30 years 9 months and 25 days in the State Bank of India by the time of his removal from service. 2. The petitioner joined as Messenger in the State Bank of India on 21.08.1971. The appointment was on daily wage basis, however, without any break. On getting through an interview, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis as a Messenger on 17.02.1973. Subsequently, he got promotion as a Record Keeper, served for some time in Cuttack City Branch of the State Bank of India and was transferred to Baliguda Branch in the district of Phulbani. On 14.05.1987, the petitioner was suspended from service and a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against him. Pending finalization of the Disciplinary Proceeding, the suspension order was revoked on 22.07.1989. On 17.03.1998, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and on 09.03.2000 vide Annexure-5, petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner preferred appeal. The appeal was disposed of vide Annexure-6 confirming the order of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer passed the following order:- “(i) The petitioner should be removed from service. (ii) The period of suspension not to be counted as duty. (iii) The amount of loss sustained by the Bank in this case is to be recovered from the petitioner’s terminal benefit.” The relevant portion of the appellate order reads as follows:- “….. I do not find any substantial material to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the appellant from Bank’s service is hereby upheld.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the stand that the petitioner having come to the service of the Bank, though as a daily wager with effect from 21.08.1971, his service from 21.08.1971 till 17.02.1973 be reckoned towards his pension. The suspension period should be treated as duty, as the appelalte authority has only confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service without whispering a word about the effect of the suspension period. 4. The suspension period should be treated as duty, as the appelalte authority has only confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from service without whispering a word about the effect of the suspension period. 4. The date of removal of the petitioner from service is itself ambiguous, as there is no clear indication about the date of removal of the petitioner from service. It is not clear whether the date of removal of the petitioner is “23.03.2000” or it is “26.11.2001” as on 26.11.2001 the petitioner was still serving in Bhitar Andhari Branch of the State Bank of India in the district of Jagatsinghpur, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit and has taken the plea that the petitioner’s total period of service is 24 years and 22 days after excluding the suspension period and other statutory deduction from total period of petitioner’s service of 26 years and 7 months. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (Dead) through L.Rs. & another, AIR 2014 SC 915 , to substantiate the contention that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or Provident Fund and gratuity. 7. On reading of Paragraphs-13, 14 & 15 of the aforesaid Judgment, it is found as follows:- “From a plain reading of Regulation 22 it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided under Chapter II of the Regulation whereas Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in terms of Article 14 of the Regulation, the Bipartite Settlement provides for removal from service with pensionary benefits “as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time”. Therefore, the expression “as would be due otherwise” would mean only such employees who are eligible and have put in minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension. Therefore, the expression “as would be due otherwise” would mean only such employees who are eligible and have put in minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension. However, such of the employees who are not eligible and have not put in required number of years of qualifying service shall not be entitled to the superannuation benefit though removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause 6(b) came to be inserted as one of the punishments on account of the Bipartite Settlement. It provides for payment of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. Thus, such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulation if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulation shall not be entitled to that.” (Quoted from Head Note for convenience) From the aforesaid Judgment, it is clear that such of the employees, who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulation, if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits, shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees, though visited with the same penalty, who are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulation, shall not be entitled to that. 8. In exercise of powers conferred by Section-50 of the State Bank of India Act, The State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (‘Rules’ for short) has been framed. In view of such fact, the aforesaid Rule has statutory force. Rule-7 of the aforesaid Rules provides that every permanent employee of the Bank shall become a member of the Pension Fund from the date, from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank. In view of such specific provision in the aforesaid Rule, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived inasmuch as the period of service, the petitioner has served in the Bank as a daily wager and the period for which, he was under probation, cannot be taken into consideration. In view of such specific provision in the aforesaid Rule, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived inasmuch as the period of service, the petitioner has served in the Bank as a daily wager and the period for which, he was under probation, cannot be taken into consideration. The petitioner’s service from the date, he was confirmed in the service of the Bank, is to be taken into consideration towards his pensionable service and the petitioner according to the counter affidavit filed by the Bank was confirmed in the Bank’s service as a permanent employee with effect from 28.08.1973. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel on the aforesaid score, therefore, is negatived. 9. Rule-21 (i) of the aforesaid Rules provides as follows:- “21. (i) No period of leave granted without leave salary or of absence without leave shall count as pensionable service. A period of suspension shall count as pensionable service only to such extent as the authority which reinstates him declares it to be pensionable at the time of reinstatement or the authority which sanctions his retirement declares it to be so at the time of according the sanction.” A cursory reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that (a) no absence without leave shall count as pensionable service and (b) the period of suspension shall count towards pensionable service only to such extent, as the authority, which reinstates him declares it to be as pensionable at the time of reinstatement. The period of suspension of the petitioner as per learned counsel for the petitioner is 2 years 5 months and 7 days. The question of treating the suspension period as duty would have arisen incase the petitioner would have been reinstated in service and the competent authority would have declared the period as pensionable at the time of reinstatement. In the present case, the petitioner was removed from service. The Enquiry Officer as quoted (supra) has categorically given finding that the suspension period is not to be counted as duty and the entire order of the Enquiry Officer passed vide Annexure-5 has been upheld by the appellate authority vide its order in Annexure-6. When the entire order has been upheld in the appeal, it is misconceived to argue that only the factum of removal from service has been upheld without whispering a word about the effect of the period of suspension. When the entire order has been upheld in the appeal, it is misconceived to argue that only the factum of removal from service has been upheld without whispering a word about the effect of the period of suspension. The aforesaid Rule vide Rule-21 (i) makes it clear that the suspension period can be treated as duty only incase of reinstatement to the extent that, an order in that regard is passed by the competent authority. In view of such position in the Rule, it is to be held that the suspension period of the petitioner is to be deducted from the pensionable service. 10. From the counter affidavit, it is found that the petitioner was absent on duty without leave for 1 month and 1 day. In view of the aforesaid Rule-21 (i), such period of 1 month and 1 day is also to be deducted from the pensionable service of the petitioner. 11. Rule-22 (i) (a) (d) provides, inter-alia, that a member shall be entitled to pension on retiring from the Bank service (a) after having completed 20 years of pensionable service period provided that he has attained the age of 50 years, or (b) after 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of age. 12. The petitioner’s case does not fall under Rule-22 (i) (a), but it falls under Rule-22 (i) (d). If he is found to have completed 25 years of pensionable service, whether removed or retired because there is no bar in the Rule not to give pensionary benefit to a removed employee, if he is otherwise eligible to get pension. According to the Bank, the petitioner has pensionable service of 24 years and 22 days to his credit and, therefore, no pension has been granted in his favour. 13. So far as the gratuity and Provident Fund are concerned, it is averred by the Bank in its counter affidavit that gratuity and Provident Fund have been paid to the petitioner according to his entitlement. However, no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in this regard. 14. There is however a doubt about the date of removal of the petitioner from service. Removal is not complete until the order is communicated to the petitioner. The Bank’s assertion is that the date of removal of the petitioner is “23.03.2000”. The assertion of the petitioner is that date of his removal is “26.11.2001”. 14. There is however a doubt about the date of removal of the petitioner from service. Removal is not complete until the order is communicated to the petitioner. The Bank’s assertion is that the date of removal of the petitioner is “23.03.2000”. The assertion of the petitioner is that date of his removal is “26.11.2001”. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in this writ application. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is devoid of any merit so far as counting of past service of the petitioner including the period of probation towards pensionable service is concerned, counting of suspension period of the petitioner towards pensionable service is concerned, counting period towards pensionable service, so far as absence of the petitioner without leave is concerned. However, so far as the date of removal from service is concerned, the matter is to be remitted back to the appropriate and competent authority of the Bank for a decision on the matter afresh. At the cost of repetition, I would reiterate here that the date of removal is to be reckoned from the date the petitioner was served with the notice of removal. If the petitioner wants, he may be given an opportunity of being heard to substantiate his case. If on de novo exercise of the aforesaid question, the petitioner is found to have rendered pensionable service for 25 years or more, admissible pension be granted in his favour. The entire exercise be completed within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Judgment. 16. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.