https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290315 Pension regulations for the Army and Navy were treated as operating independently of the punitive provisions in the service Acts. The Court held that Regulations 16(a) and 15(2) validly authorised forfeiture or reduction of pension after dismissal, removal or cashiering, even where the Court Martial had not made a separate forfeiture order. Prior satisfactory service was not a distinct precondition for invoking those regulations, and the forfeiture process was not arbitrary where notice and consideration of replies were given. The Court also rejected the plea of double jeopardy, holding that Court Martial punishment and pension forfeiture operate in different fields. en-us Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290315 Pension regulations for the Army and Navy were treated as operating independently of the punitive provisions in the service Acts. The Court held that Regulations 16(a) and 15(2) validly authorised forfeiture or reduction of pension after dismissal, removal or cashiering, even where the Court Martial had not made a separate forfeiture order. Prior satisfactory service was not a distinct precondition for invoking those regulations, and the forfeiture process was not arbitrary where notice and consideration of replies were given. The Court also rejected the plea of double jeopardy, holding that Court Martial punishment and pension forfeiture operate in different fields. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290315