HAZARA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the impugned order of the President conveyed to the petitioner by memo of 4-6-1979 by which the President has been pleased to forfeit the pension that would have been admissible to him' under the Pension Regulations had he retired from service in the normal course. The petition was heard along with the L.P.A. 94/1975. That Letters Patent Appeal challenged the impugned order dated 21-9-1971 passed by the President in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Air Force Act by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. We have by a separate judgment dismissed that appeal and have held that the impugned order was passed in the exercise of Presidential pleasure as envisaged in Article 310 (1) of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Air Force Act, notwithstanding the use of the Word 'dismissal'.

(2.) The petitioner was given a memo of 27-4-1979 asking him to show cause why the pension should not be forfeited under Regulation l6(a) of Pension Regulations. The petitioner in Regulation 16 (a) should be interpreted in the same manner showed cause giving his reasons as to why there could be no forfeiture of pension after a lapse of so much time and also challenging the competency of the authorities to make any forfeiture and also pointing out how in other similar cases no forfeiture had taken place even though those people had also been dismissed. The .President did not accept the said representation because by the imipugned order of 4-6-1979 the petitioner's pension has been forfeited.

(3.) Now Regulation 16 (a) Section 1 Chapter II of the Pension Regulations for Air Force 1961, Part I reads as under: