10.We have heard Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Paras Kuhad,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondents.
11.Shri Gupta would submit that the imposition of punishment
in terms of “forfeiture of seniority in rank” would not
amount to “forfeiture of service” of the appellant and,
therefore, the period of service of the appellant must be
calculated as 20 years instead of 17 years entitling him for
the grant of pensionary benefits.
12.Section 81 of the Act provides for the various type of
punishments that can be imposed under the Act. Clause (f)
speaks of forfeiture of seniority in rank in the case of
officers and master chief petty officers and clause (l)
speaks of severe reprimand or reprimand.
13.Section 82 of the Act provides provisions as to award of
punishment. Sub-Section (12) of Section 82 is relevant for
the purpose of disposal of this appeal. It is as under:
“Section 82 provides as to award of punishment:-
x x x x x
x x x x x
(12) The punishment of forfeiture of seniority
shall involve the loss of the benefit of service
included in the seniority forfeited for the
purposes of pay, pension, gratuity, promotion and such other purposes, as may be prescribed,
provided that such pay, pension, gratuity and
promotion and other purposes depend upon such
service.”
14.After noticing sub-section (12) of Section 82, Appendix
III framed under Regulation 20 of the Navy (Pension)
Regulations, 1964 (“the Regulations” for short), which
provides for qualifying service for grant of pension to the
officers of general list, also requires to be noticed by us.
The relevant clauses in Appendix III are clause (1) and its
proviso is under:
“(1)Commissioned service.- Period of service as a
permanent commissioned officer and, if it is
preceded without a break, by service of one or
more of the following categories subject to the
refund to Government of the gratuity, if any,
other than war gratuity, received in respect of
such service namely:-
(a) Service as commissioned officer in the Army,
Indian Navy or Air Force, irrespective of the type
of commission;
(b) Mobilized commissioned service in the
Indian Naval Reserve/ Indian Army in India Reserve
of officers or called up commissioned service in
the Indian Air Force Volunteer Reserve;
(c) Embodied or called out commissioned service
as an officer of the late Indian Territorial Force
or of the late Auxiliary Force (India) or of the
Territorial Army [or the Auxiliary Air Force]
Provided that -
(a) Any service which was forfeited for seniority,
and
(b) Any period of unauthorized absence unless pay
and allowance are admitted for the period of
absence shall not be regarded as qualifying
service.”
15.It is neither in dispute nor can it be disputed by the
appellant that an order of punishment was passed by the JUDGMENT disciplinary authority for violation of the orders issued by
the Western Naval Command and the punishments so imposed
therein was forfeiture of 36 months seniority in the rank of
Lieutenant Commander and severe reprimand.
16.The language employed in the aforesaid provisions which
we have noticed earlier clearly envisages that for the
purposes of calculating the pensionary benefits, the
qualifying service would exclude the period of service which
was forfeited under Section 82(f)(l) of the Act.
17.In the instant case though the appellant has completed 20
years of service, but in view of sub-section (12) of Section
82 of the Act, the imposition of forfeiture of seniority
would involve loss of benefit of service. This means that
in view of the punishment imposed by the respondents, he
would lose three years of the benefit of service. In other
words, that his total tenure of service would be only 17
years of service out of the statutory requirement of 20
years. However, while calculating the qualifying service,
the respondents had committed a mistake which they have
rectified after complying the requirements under the
Statute.
18.In our considered view, all these provisions and facets
of the matter have been taken note of by the High Court
while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant JUDGMENT and, upon due consideration of the matter, we are in full
agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the
High Court in the impugned judgment and order.
19.Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L. DATTU)