Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)The Union Of India vs Chhedu Singh Chauhan 40 Wps/8012/2018 ... on 5 December, 2018
In Union of India v. P.D. Yadav (supra) it was held
by this Court that punishment imposed under Section 71 of
8 | Page
the Army Act and order passed under Regulation 16 (a) of
the Pension Regulations are entirely different. The
submission made that imposition of punishment under
Section 71 of the Army Act and passing of an order under
Regulation 16 (a) would result in double jeopardy was not
accepted by this Court.
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Army Act, 1950
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Union Of India & Ors vs Brg. P.K. Dutta (Retd.) on 7 December, 1994
9. The Respondent in Union of India v. P.K. Dutta
(Retd.) (supra) was Court Martialed and awarded three
years’ rigorous imprisonment apart from being cashiered.
He approached the Delhi High Court complaining against
1
1995 Supp. (2) SCC 29
2
(2002) 1 SCC 405
7 | Page
the inaction of the authorities in not paying him retiral
benefits. The Delhi High Court held that cashiering does
not itself result in forfeiture of retiral benefits. It was
argued by the Union of India before this Court that
proceedings for forfeiture of the retiral benefits as
contemplated by Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension
Regulations were pending and the High Court ought not to
have allowed the Writ Petition filed by Brig. P.K. Dutta. This
Court was of the opinion that Section 71 relating to the
punishments awardable by the Courts Martials and
Regulation 16 (a) operate in distinct fields. Regulation 16
Union Of India vs Brig.Balbir Singh (Retd.) on 16 January, 2020
7. Mr. Sridhar argued that even if the penalty imposed
by the Court Martial of cashiering from service is upheld,
forfeiture of all the pensionary benefits of the Appellant is
not automatic. He submitted that no order as
contemplated in Section 71 (h) of the Army Act, 1950
forfeiting his pension has been directed by the General
Court Martial. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled for
payment of pension. He relied upon the judgments of this
6 | Page
Court in Union of India v. Brig. P.K. Dutta (Retd.
1