UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus P.D. YADAV

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 16-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
P.D. YADAV 
OCTOBER 16, 2001 
[B.N. KIRPAL, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND 
P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Military Law : 
Anny Act, I950-Section 7I-Pension Regulations for Army, 196I-
Regulation I6(a): 
Navy Act 1957-Section BI-The Navy (Pension) Regulations I964-
Regulation I 5(2): 
Court Martial-Pensionary benefits-Fm:feiture o.f-Respondents guilty 
of certain charges-Tried by General Court Martial-President/Central Gov-
ernment ordered forfeiture of pensionary benefits-High Court interfering with 
the order on the ground that prior satisfactory service of the re!>pondents not 
considered and court martial did not consider it appropriate to impose punish-
ment under Section7I(h)-On appeal, held High Court not right in quashing 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the orders o.ffor:feiture o.f pension as the pensionary authorities not debarred 
E 
from passing orders under the pension Regulations-Imposing o.ffm:feiture o.f 
pension in addition to punishment imposed under Section 71 does not amount 
to double jeopardy-Constitution o.f India, Articles 20 to 22. 
Maxims: 
Nemo dibet bis vexari, si constet curiae quad sit pro una et eadem 
causa-Meaning and applicability of 
The Respondents were tried by General Court Martial on certain 
charges and were penalised. Thereafter they·were issued show cause no-
F 
ticts for forfeiture of pension under Regulatio.n 15(2) of the Navy (Pen-
G 
sion) Regulations 1964 and Regulation 16(a) of Army Pension Regulations 
respectively. They submitted reply to the notice. However, order of forfei-
ture of pensionary benefits under the said regulations was passed; Re-
spondents filed a writ petition and the High Court interfered with the 
order of forfeiture. Hence the present appeals. 
H 
209 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
. E 
HELD : 1. High Court was not right in quashing the orders of 
forfeiture of pension passed by the President/Central Government under 
the Army Pension Regulation 16(a) or Navy Pension Regulation 15(2) on 
the ground that prior satisfactory service of the respondents was not taken 
into consideration by the authority and the court martial did not consider 
it appropriate to impose the punishment under section 71(h) of the Army 
Act. The orders of forfeiture of pension was passed after issuing show 
cause notices giving opportunity to the respondent to explain the circum-
stances and the hardship, having regard to the serious nature of charges, 
keeping in view the relevant circumstances including the punishment im· 
posed on proving charges and also on perusal of copies of the notings of the 
Ministry of Defence. Thus, the orders are not arbitrary, unreasonable or 
without application of mind. [233-C·D·E; 234-E] 
Major (Retired) Hari Chand Pahwa v. Union of India & Am:, [1995] 
Supp. 1 SCC 221, relied on. 
Lt. Col. (T.S.) Harbans Singh ·sandhu v. Union of India & Ors., Writ 
Petition No. 553 of 1972 decided on November 22, 1978; Major G.S. Sodhi 
v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCC 371; Union of India & Ors. v. Brig. P.K. Dutta 
(Retd.), [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 29 and Union of India & Ors. v. Lt. Col. P.S . 
Bhargava, [1997] 2 SCC 28, referred to. 
2. The High Court rightly held that Regulation 16(a) is not inconsist-
ent with Section 71(h) and (k) of the Army Act and they cover different 
fields; also Regulation 16(a) and Rules 14(5) and 15 of the Army Rules 
F 
operate in different fields. It also rightly upheld the va~idity of Army 
Pension Regulation 16(a) and Navy Pension Regulation 15(2). [299-G] 
3. It cannot be said that since no punishment was imposed under 
clause (k) by the authorities, although it could have been done, there is no 
warrant to pass an order forfeit~ng pension under the Army Pen.sion 
G 
Regul~tions in respect of same offen~e. The provisions relating to punish· 
ments under the Acts and pension Regulations operate in different fields. 
Pension becomes due subsequent to retirement or termination of s~rvice 
subject to satisfying. certain conditions of satisfacto1·y qualifying service 
and if not otherwise disentitl-~d for claiming pension. Clause. (k) speaks of 
H 
all arrears, pay, allowance.s and ot~~fil?Hbli,c money due to a person a_nd 
U.0.1. v. P.D. YADAV 
211 
not of pension. So on the date of cashiering or dismissal there cannot be 
any arrears of pension. Section 73 of the Army Act enables the authorities 
to impose punishments in combination. Merely because punishment is not 
im
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.