BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 14th February, 1997 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and directing the appellants to determine and release the pension payable to the petitioner on his dismissal from service. The brief facts necessary for the present purposes are that the petitioner was recruited as Constable in the Border Security Force on 27. 8. 1974 and was later on posted as Constable Nursing Assistant during the year 1984. He was charged under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act vide charge sheet dated 14. 12. 1994 and after he was tried by Summery Security Force Court, he was found guilty and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed. Section 48 of the B. S. F. Act provides punishment which may be inflicted in respect of offence committed by the persons subject to B. S. F. Act and convicted by Security Force Court. The various punishments which can be imposed including dismissal from service as well as forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pension or other prescribed purpose and it also envisaged that one or more penalties can be imposed for offence committed by the persons subject to the Act. It is on the aforesaid premise, the petitioner claimed that since forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension or any other prescribed purpose is not the punishment imposed upon him notwithstanding dismissal from service, he is entitled to the benefit of pension. The contention of the petitioner was founded on the principle that when these two punishments are independent punishments and can be imposed alternatively or jointly the punishment of dismissal from service does not include the punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension or any other prescribed purpose unless there is a punishment to that extent is imposed with dismissal from service does not come in the way of claiming his pension.
(3.) THE writ petition was filed failing to secure any relief from the appellant, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Major G. S. Sodhi vs. Union of India (1991 (2) SCC Page 371 and the decision rendered in Lt. Col. (T. S.) Harbans Singh Sandhu vs. Union of India reported in 2002 (1) SCC Page 427. The plea found favour with learned Single Judge and following the aforesaid two decisions, the writ petition was allowed and the non-petitioners-appellants have been directed to pay the entire pension, gratuity and provident fund under the Rules to the petitioners within 3 months with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. ;