K C SAINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as an Equipment Assistant in the Air Force way back in the year 1977. By an order dated 24.2.2003 issued by the Chief of the Air Staff he was dismissed from service in terms of Section 20(1) of the Air Force Act, 1950 r/w Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 on the ground that his continuance in the Air Force constituted a high security risk for the Indian Air Force. A reading of the said order shows that the petitioner was alleged to have been receiving from Sepoy Balram Singh of DRDO sensitive defence related information for monetary consideration and passing on the said information to one Mr.Kumar, an unauthorised person thereby causing damage to the security interest of the Indian Air Force and the country. The said order of dismissal of the petitioner is not under challenge before us. What the petitioner is aggrieved of is an order made by the Air Headquarters on 3.11.2006 declining his claim for payment of pension to him. The petitioner had on that subject filed CWP No. 11972/2006 in which his complaint was that his claim for grant of pensionary benefits had not been examined by the respondents. The said petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.7.2006 with a direction to the respondents to deal with the claim made by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of three months. It was pursuant to that direction that the Air Headquarters have now passed a speaking order dated 3.11.2006 in which it has set out the background in which the petitioner had been dismissed from service and how he was not eligible for grant of any pensionary benefits. The present writ petition calls in question the correctness of the said order.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In terms of amended Regulations 16 and 102 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force commissioned officers who are cashiered or dismissed under the provisions of the Air Force Act, 1950 or removed/compulsorily retired under Rule 16 of Air Force Rules 1969 are ineligible for grant of pension and gratuity in respect of all previous service. In exceptional cases, however, the competent authority may on submission of an appeal to that effect at its discretion sanction pension/gratuity or both at a rate not exceeding that which would be otherwise admissible had the individual so cashiered/dismissed or removed/retired in the normal course. The petitioner, it appears, considers his case to be one falling under the category of 'exceptional cases' in which the competent authority could in its discretion sanction pension/gratuity or both in his favour. That claim has not found favour with the Air Headquarters. The speaking order passed by it recalls the background in which the petitioner was dismissed from service and records that since the petitioner's misconduct was of a grave nature and was perceived to be a matter of high security risk for Air Force, there was no question or justification of his being granted pension or gratuity by striking a departure from the general rule. That contention has appealed to us also. We fail to understand how a person, who acts against the interest of the country, is found to have indulged in activities that expose the country's security to risk and who trades in sensitive security related information for monetary consideration, can claim that his case falls in the category of exceptional cases for the grant of a benefit like pension or gratuity. Grant of any such benefit would on the contrary amount to rewarding the petitioner for his nefarious and anti national activities on account of which the Air Force has dismissed him from service. Whatever may be the sweep of the expression 'Exceptional Cases' referred to in the Regulations, it cannot, in our opinion, cover a case where a member of an Armed Force is dismissed on account of activities found to constitute a security risk or activities that have jeopardised the security of the country.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the consideration of the petitioner's case at the hands of the Air Headquarters was incompetent inasmuch as the Government and not the Air Headquarters ought to have considered his prayer for grant of pensionary benefits. On behalf of the respondents our attention was drawn to an order dated 14.8.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence granting sanction to the delegation of administrative powers with the approval of Raksha Mantri to the Service Headquarters in respect of various subjects indicated in the said order. At Item (a) (viii) award of pensionary benefits to officers dismissed from service is also a matter on which the power to deal with a claim has been delegated to the concerned Service Headquarters. Para (b) of the said order stipulates that the approving authority in the Service Headquarters in respect of the subject enumerated in the order will be the Air Officer (Personnel) in the Air Force. It further stipulates that any further re-delegation of these powers will require prior approval of Ministry of Defence. Para (b) reads : ?Approving Authority in the Service Hqrs in respect of the above subjects will be AG/COP/AOP/AOA as the case may be Any further re-delegation of these powers will require prior approval of Ministry of Defence.?