JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. An employee dismissed from service after a punishment of termination of service being imposed in disciplinary proceedings against him has sought pension. The claim of the petitioner for pension is founded upon the contention that, the petitioner has qualifying service prior to the dismissal from service and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the pension. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was working as a Senior Laboratory Attendant when he had suffered from various serious illnesses. The illnesses were such that the petitioner was unable to attend to his duties. The authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner due to his continued absence from service. The petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service with effect from June 27, 1995. The petitioner was appointed on April 1, 1968 as Laboratory Attendant Grade-III and was promoted to Laboratory Attendant Grade-II on November 2, 1979. The petitioner, therefore, has qualifying period of service which entitles the petitioner to pension. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the various representations made on behalf of the petitioner for release of pension and the orders passed by the Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned Advocate for the university has submitted that, the petitioner had forfeited his right of pension in view of his dismissal from service consequent to a disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner being discharged from service after a disciplinary proceedings, according to the learned Advocate for the university, the petitioner can no longer to be said to have rendered satisfactory service even if the petitioner has rendered qualifying service to receive pension prior to the order of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, he is not entitled to the pension as prayed for. The university authorities had considered such issue internally and decided against the petitioner. He has relied upon All India Reporter 1954 Supreme Court page 369 (Shyamlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2011 Volume 13 Supreme Court Cases page 118 (Mahendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.), 1997 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 256 (Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) & Ors.) and 2016 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes page 41 (Rebati Ranjan Ray v. United Bank of India) in support of his contentions. 4. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 5. The fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service after initiation of a disciplinary proceedings is not disputed. The pension scheme so far as the petitioner is concerned is governed by Annexure-I to the memorandum bearing No. 1250-Edn. (11) dated December 27, 1991. Clause 8 of such pension scheme is as follows:- “(8) Eligibility of Pension. Subject to satisfactory service, an employee shall be entitled to pension provided that the employee concerned has completed at least 15 years of qualifying service:- (i) on completing the age of superannuation; (ii) on resignation; (iii) on voluntary retirement; (iv) on being declared permanently incapacitated for further service by a duly constituted Medical Board by the Syndicate/Executive Council; (v) on termination of service due to abolition of the post. The minimum qualifying service should be five years in the University wherefrom he retires. Provided that the State Government may relax the period of qualifying service on the merit of any particular case.” 6. Clause 8 of the pension scheme prescribes the conditions to be satisfied for an employee to become eligible for pension. Two essential conditions have to be satisfied by the employee, namely, satisfactory service and 15 years of qualifying service. The State Government retains the power to relax the period of qualifying service. The period of qualifying service alone would not entitle a person to claim pension. He has to satisfy that, he has rendered satisfactory service for the qualifying period. Clause 8 makes rendition of satisfactory service sine qua non for the purpose of being eligible for pension. 7. An employee discharged from service in a disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have rendered satisfactory service. A disciplinary proceedings is initiated against an employee when the service rendered by such employee is not found to be satisfactory by the employer. The culmination of the disciplinary proceedings in any disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee becomes relevant in terms of clause 8. A person dismissed from service as punishment on the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be said to have rendered satisfactory service. 8. Shyamlal (supra) has held that, an officer guided by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules would not receive pension which he has earned if he is dismissed from service. 9. A person dismissed from service as punishment on the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be said to have rendered satisfactory service. 8. Shyamlal (supra) has held that, an officer guided by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules would not receive pension which he has earned if he is dismissed from service. 9. Mahendra Prasad Singh (supra) has held in the facts of that case that, a dismissed employee was not entitled to any pension. Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju (supra) has held that, a dismissed employee is not entitled to pension. 10. Rebati Ranjan Ray (supra) has dealt with the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and has held that, if there is a provision in any service regulations which prohibits the payment of gratuity to a person dismissed from service on the ground of moral turpitude, the same cannot be said to be at variance with or in derogation of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 11. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the claim for pension made by the petitioner. 12. W.P. No. 17824 (W) of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs.