UNION OF INDIA Vs. P D YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In short the facts leading to filing of these appeals, are as stated below.

(2.) Civil Appeal No. 7805/1997. The respondent herein joined Navy as a sailor in April, 1965 and was commissioned in October, 1980. On account of certain alleged misconduct and irregularities, he was tried by general court martial on five charges. He was found guilty of the charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 and consequently a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him on 26/2/1990. He was given a show-cause notice on 21/6/1991 under regulation 15 (2) of the navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 as to why his pensionary benefits should not be forfeited. He sent a reply on 24/7/1991. The appellants informed him on 7/5/1992 that the action will be taken soon pursuant to the show-cause notice issued. However, without waiting any further, he filed a writ petition on 20/1/1993 in the High Court. After the filing of the said writ petition, an order was passed on 28/3/1994 forfeiting 50% of the pensionary benefits. The High court partly allowed his writ petition and remanded the case giving certain directions to the appellants by the order dated 4/3/1997. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this court in this appeal.

(3.) Civil Appeal No. 7806/1997. The respondent was commissioned in the Indian Army on 30/6/1963 and was due to retire on 31/3/1989. On 17/2/1988, he was tried by general court martial on certain charges and was dis- missed from service on 13/6/1988 under section 71 of the Army Act. He submit- ted papers for payment of pension stating that he had qualifying service Since pension was not given to him, he filed civil writ petition no. 1249/90 in the High court on 3/3/1990. On 16/4/1991, a show-cause notice was issued under section 16 (a) of the Pension Regulations of the Army (part I) proposing forfeiture of pension on the ground that he was dis- missed from service. He submitted reply to the said show-cause notice. How- ever, the President of India by order dated 22/7/1992 under said regulation 16 (a) forfeited 50% of the pensionary benefits. He filed writ petition no. 2866/ 90 for amendment of the writ petition challenging the said order. The High court by the impugned order quashed the order dated 22/7/1992 and directed the appellants to reconsider his case in the light of the directions given in the judg- ment. Hence this appeal.