The appellant, a bank officer, was tried departmentally for his companyduct for which he was charged and removed from the bank service on 6 3 1982.
The Appellate Board partly accepted the appeal and modified the order of removal by substituting it by an order of companypulsory retirement with effect from 6 3 1982.
While issuing numberice in this appeal, the numberice was companyfined to the question of pension only as per the order of this Court dated 6 4 1987.
1 A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Banks service a after having companypleted twenty years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years.
On the question of payment of pension as per the Pension Rules the learned Single Judge in the light of the relevant rule, to which reference will be made a little later, held that the appellant was number entitled to any pension under the said rule.
The order of companypulsory retirement was upheld in the writ petition.
The appellant challenged the said order in writ petition in the High Court.
The appeal got summarily rejected and that is how this appeal is filed by obtaining special leave to appeal.
He challenged the order in appeal before the Appellate Board.
The rule relevant for deciding the grievance of the appellant is Rule 22 of the Pension Rules, which reads as under 22.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
