Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Singh Ex. Subedar Major (Hony. Lt) vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 31 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)115PLR658
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
ORDER Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by Ex-Subedar Major Nasib Singh for quashing the order dated 22.11.1995, copy Annexure P-l vide which sanction of General Officer Commanding Uttar Pradesh Area was accorded for forfeiture of pension for the period from 18.2.1986 to 1.6.1995 being the period of imprisonment pursuant to the conviction under Sections 302, 307 326 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and restoration of full pension for life with effect from 2.6.1995 after having been remitted the sentence and released from the said jail.
2. The brief facts of the case arc that the petitioner had retired from the army as Subedar Major/Honorary Lieutenant on 1.6.1982. Service pension was granted from the date of superannuation. Thereafter, petitioner was involved in a murder case and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on 18.2.1986 by the Additional Session,: Judge, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner thereafter filed appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court but his conviction and sentence were maintained. The petitioner was informed that the respondent, vide its decision dated 22.11.1995, copy Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, had forfeited his pension from 18.2.1986 to 1.6.1995 and had restored full pension for life with effect from 2.6.1995. The petitioner is aggrieved to the extent that the pension with effect from 18.2.1986 to 1.6.1995 was forfeited.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The counsel further contends that pension earned is property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which cannot be forfeited or taken away except in due process of law and without serving prior notice for the same. The counsel further contends that any law providing for forfeiture of pension is violative of the provisions of Article 20(2) of Constitution of India and is thus, void.
4. On notice of motion having been issued, the Union of India filed written statement.
5. Counsel for the Union of India contends that the army personnel who were in receipt of pension, after their discharge from military service, are not entitled to any pensionary benefits during the period of sentence undergone by them, if they are found guilty in any criminal case. The counsel also contends that a bare perusal of paragraphs 29 and 29.1 of Pension Payment Instructions, 1973 would demonstrate that pension of such a pensioner is liable to be forfeited if he is convicted by any Criminal Court in a serious crime and if the Pension Disbursing Officer becomes, aware of any case in which a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment, then, the matter is forthwith reported to the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). The counsel further contends that there is no violation of Article 20(2). Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India envisages that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, In the case in hand, there is no double jeopardy.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
7. The Apex Court in "Maj. (Retd.) Hari Chand Pahwa v. Union of India, 1995(1) Services Law Reporter, 703 has held as under :-
"The provision of Regulation 16(a) are clear. Even if it is assumed that the Pension Regulations have no statutory force, we fail to understand how the provisions of said Regulations are contrary to the statutory provisions under the Act or the Rules. The pension has been provided under these Regulations. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the pension was granted to the appellant under the said Regulations. The Regulations which provided for the grant of pension can also provide for taking it away on justifiable grounds. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant, his reply was considered and thereafter the President passed the order forfeiting the pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity."
8. A bare reading of the above observations would make it clear that the Regulations which provided for the grant of pension can also provide for taking it away on justifiable grounds.
9. Paragraphs 29 and 29.1 of the Pension Payment Instructions, 1973, which deal with the forfeiture of pension are reproduced hereunder :-
"29. Forfeiture of Pensions of Class I, II and V Pensions;
The above clauses of pensioners are liable to forfeiture of pension if convicted by any Criminal Court of serious crime including political offences or guilty of grave misconduct, should the Pension Disbursing Officer become aware of any case in which a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment or is found guilty of grave misconduct, he should forthwith report the matter to the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) with a copy of the order of conviction and sentence and suspend the pension provisionally pending receipt of instructions from the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) as to whether the pension should be withheld, reduced or continued in full. Any permanent deduction of pension that may be decided upon, will be notified to the Pension Disbursing Officer who should note the reduced rate on the pensioner's papers and the payment/Check Register."
"29.1. Forfeiture of Pensions of Class VI and VII pensions.
Should the Pension Disbursing Officer become aware of any case in which a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment, he should forthwith suspend the payment of his pension and report the fact to the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) for keeping a note in his records. On release of the petitioner from imprisonment, the Pension Disbursing Officer will obtain an application from the pensioner for restoration of pension and submit it to the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) with a report in IAFA-401 together with the following documents:-
i) A copy of the judgment of the Court by which the pensioner was tried and convicted and if an appeal was made a copy also of the judgment of the appellate court;
ii) A memo showing the dates from and to which the pensioner was actually in prison, to be obtained from the Superintendent of the jail from which the petitioner was released.
iii) A list giving particulars of previous conviction, if any, against the pensioner to be obtained from the Deputy Commissioner or Collector of the District.
iv) A memo showing the character on discharge from service, length of service and the date from which petitioner as well as regimental number of the pensioner as shown in the descriptive roll;
v) A memo showing the date of arrest and the period the pensioner was under police custody as an undertrial pension prior to the date of conviction."
From the above paragraphs, it is amply clear that the pension of a pensioner is liable to be forfeited if he is convicted by any Criminal Court in a serious crime. As per paragraph 29.1 of the Pension Payment Instructions, 1973, pension is again restored on the release of pensioner from imprisonment. The petitioner was tried for a murder and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 18.2.1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. After imprisonment of the petitioner provisions of Paragraphs 29 and 29.1 of the Pension Payment Instructions, 1973 came into play and the pension of petitioner stood automatically suspended. The petitioner was released from the jail on 2.6.1995. After his release, full pension of the petitioner has been restored and during the period with effect from 18.2.1986 to 1.6.1995 when the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment, his pension was forfeited which could admittedly have been done under the Statutory Rules. It is not a case where the petitioner has been punished twice. The forfeiture of pension of the petitioner does not offend Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find no merit in the plea of the petitioner that he has been prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
10. In the light of above discussion. We find no force in this writ petition which is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.