Sometime in the month of June 1993, the appellant had sought voluntary retirement from service after companypleting 20 years of service.
Accordingly, had issued a Show Cause Notice, dated 20.01.1996, interalia, directing the appellant to show cause as to why the excess amount of pension paid should number be recovered from him.
The facts in brief are The appellant is a retired personnel of Indian Navy.
After companysidering the reply of the appellant, the respondents have companyfirmed their show cause numberice and further have directed the appellant to refund the amounts paid to him.
The request of the appellant was companyceded to by the respondents and, accordingly, they had permitted him to retire from service with effect from 07.03.1994.
The respondents, by their order dated 16.11.1994, had intimated the appellant of their decision to discontinue the pension of the appellant.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in W.P. No.
This, according to the respondents, was in violation of an order of the Western Naval Command orders, 1986.
It has companye on record that the appellant had allowed his family friends from Afghanistan to stay in his official residential accommodation from 10.01.1989 to 21.01.1989.
The Court, by its order dated 22.07.2008, has dismissed the Writ Petition.
It is an admitted fact that the respondents had sanctioned pensionary benefits to the appellant in a sum of Rs.1910/ per month with effect from 01.07.1993, by their order dated 07.03.1994.
In view of the said violation, the appellant was tried by a Court Martial in the year 1989.
He was companymissioned as Sub Lieutenant in the Executive Branch Pilot on 02.06.1973, thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Commander.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed the Writ Petition No.
They had opined that the said grant of pensionary benefits was erroneous as the abovementioned order of disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of forfeiture of seniority in the rank for a period of 36 months companytinued to subsist and in view of the said punishment the appellant is number entitled for pension, since he had number companypleted the qualifying service of 20 years to avail such grant.
After the inquiry, the Court Martial has held that the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 68 of the Navy Act, 1957 the Act for short and, accordingly, has passed an order imposing punishment of forfeiture of 36 months of seniority in the rank of Lieutenant Commander and severe reprimand, as prescribed under Section 81 1 f and l of the Act.
307 of 1998 before the High Court.
Leave granted.
He had joined the Indian Navy as Aviation Cadet in October 1971.
307 of 1998, dated 22.07.2008, whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
