2001 (10) TMI 1194 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Distinction between Section 71 and Regulation 16(a).
2. Validity and enforceability of non-statutory Army Pension Regulations.
3. Consideration of prior satisfactory service in forfeiture of pension.
4. Alleged arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the orders forfeiting pension.
5. Applicability of double jeopardy principle.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Distinction between Section 71 and Regulation 16(a):
The court clarified that Section 71(h) of the Army Act contemplates a punishment at the conclusion of the Court Martial, while Regulation 16(a) addresses the pension of an officer who is cashiered, dismissed, or removed from service. Section 71(h) deals with forfeiture of service for increased pay or pension, whereas Regulation 16(a) comes into play after the punishment by the Court Martial and its confirmation, dealing specifically with pension forfeiture.

2. Validity and Enforceability of Non-Statutory Army Pension Regulations:
The court upheld that even though Army Pension Regulations are non-statutory, they are enforceable as they provide for pension benefits and also for their forfeiture on justifiable grounds. The court referenced Major (Retired) Hari Chand Pahwa vs. Union of India, confirming that regulations providing for the grant of pension can also provide for taking it away, subject to conditions.

3. Consideration of Prior Satisfactory Service in Forfeiture of Pension:
The High Court's insistence on considering prior satisfactory service before forfeiting pension was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the imposition of punishment by Court Martial itself indicates unsatisfactory service, and Regulation 16(a) does not require consideration of prior satisfactory service. The court emphasized that the regulation is self-contained and distinct from other regulations that deal with pension in normal circumstances.

4. Alleged Arbitrariness and Unreasonableness in the Orders Forfeiting Pension:
The court found that the orders forfeiting pension were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. It was noted that show-cause notices were issued, replies were considered, and all relevant factors were taken into account before passing the orders. The court reviewed the Ministry of Defence's notings and concluded that there was a proper application of mind and adherence to principles of natural justice.

5. Applicability of Double Jeopardy Principle:
The court dismissed the contention that forfeiture of pension in addition to punishment under Section 71 amounted to double jeopardy. It clarified that punishment under Section 71 is for misconduct, while forfeiture under Regulation 16(a) pertains to the grant or denial of pension based on satisfactory service. These are separate actions and do not constitute double jeopardy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments, holding that the Army Pension Regulation 16(a) and Navy Pension Regulation 15(2) are valid and enforceable. The orders forfeiting pension were justified, not arbitrary, and complied with natural justice. The court affirmed that prior satisfactory service need not be considered under these specific regulations, and the principle of double jeopardy does not apply in this context. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's directions for reconsideration were overturned.