Forfeiture of pension upheld

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, OCT. 17. The Supreme Court has upheld the orders of forfeiture of pension (partly or fully, as the case may be) of certain former Army and Navy officials (respondents) following the imposition of punishment after General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings on certain serious charges.

Allowing a group of connected appeals from the Union of India, Mr. Justice Shivraj V. Patil ruled that ``consideration of prior satisfactory service of a person till the date of imposition of punishment of cashiering or dismissal or removal from service cannot be read into Army Pension Regulation 16(a) or Navy Pension Regulation 15 (2).''

Setting aside the impugned verdicts of the High Court, the bench which included Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal and Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy, said ``a plain reading of these regulations shows that in case of a person who has been cashiered or dismissed or removed from service, at the discretion of the President under Regulation 16 (a) and in case of an officer who is dismissed otherwise than with disgrace from the service, the Central Government under Regulation 15(2) of the Navy Pension Regulations can pass order forfeiting pension, partly or fully.''

``The very fact that such punishment is imposed on a person for proved misconduct after trial by the court martial itself shows his unsatisfactory service,'' the bench said noting that ``the High Court has read something more in these regulations in insisting for considering prior satisfactory service of a person upto the date of imposition of punishment, which is not required by the very regulations.''

``Pension is one, which becomes due subsequent to retirement or termination of service subject to satisfying certain conditions of satisfactory qualifying service and if not otherwise disentitled for claiming pension,'' the bench said.

``Regulation 16(a) being a distinct and specific regulation enables for forfeiture pension, partly or fully, as sequel to imposition of a particular type of punishment,'' and ``Regulation 16(a) in this regard is self-contained,'' the bench observed.

``The High Court clearly committed an error in holding that previous satisfactory service of a person upto the date of imposition of punishment should have been taken into consideration for exercise of power under Regulation 16(a) and it cannot be sustained,'' the bench held.

On scrutiny of the record, the bench found that ``there has been application of mind and having regard to the serious nature of charges and keeping in view the relevant circumstances including the punishments imposed (on the respondents) on proved charges, the impugned orders appear to have been passed forfeiting pension.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : A.P. to expand 'e-consumer facility'
Next     : Ex-SC judge seeks pension parity