JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. — Refusal to grant pensionary benefits to an ex-Lieutenant of Indian Navy on the ground that he had been dismissed with disgrace from service is the subject-matter of this Writ application. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts necessary for appreciation of this case are as follows : The petitioner had joined Indian Navy on 20th January, 1973. After successful completion of training he was posted as Engi¬neering Mechanic, II Class on 20th, July 1974. In course of time by dint of sincerity and merit he had been promoted to the cadre of Lieutenant with effect from 1.1.1985. In the year 1993 while he was working as a Logistics Officer in the ship INS Jamuna allegations having been levelled with regard to certain omissions and commissions, five charges were framed against him. After serving a charge-sheet he was put on trial in Court Martial. The initiation of trial before the Court Martial and the charges levelled against him were just like bolt from the blue. He was given no opportunity to contact any person competent enough to advise him in the matter and as to the legal consequences there¬of. He was under great mental shock and while in traumatic state he thought not guilty, admitted the charges to be true. Accepting the said admission of the petitioner, the Court Martial gave him an opportunity to state the mitigating circumstances in his favour before passing any sentence against him. The petitioner made his statement and relying upon the same the Court Martial by order dated 19th September, 1995 Annexure-3 sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment as an ‘A’ class prisoner and ordered that he be dismissed from Naval Service and to suffer consequen¬tial penalties involved. The petitioner assailed the order/sentence of the Court Martial by filing a review petition before the Chief of the Naval Staff in consonance with Section 160 of the Navy Act, 1957. The said authority considered the charges framed against the peti¬tioner and the materials available on record and holding the Charges 2, 4 and 5 not to have been established set aside the conviction and sentence under the said charges. While upholding the conviction under charges 1 and 3 the substantive sentence was modified from six months rigorous imprisonment to four months. While upholding the conviction under charges 1 and 3 the substantive sentence was modified from six months rigorous imprisonment to four months. The petitioner made a representation to the Chief of Naval Staff, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi praying for grant of pen¬sionary benefits to him he having rendered ‘twenty-one years of unblemished service. After receipt of the application a notice was issued to him calling upon him to show cause as to why pen¬sionary benefits should be granted. The petitioner submitted his reply inter alia stating that the order of his dismissal from service was in terms of Section 81(1)(e) of The Navy Act, 1957 and as such he was entitled to get pensionary benefits. No steps having been taken by the authorities in the matter for quite some time the petitioner was subjected to unsurmountable hardship and passed his days under stringent financial difficulties and mental tension. Finding no way out, the wife of the petitioner made a representation before the National Commission for Women seeking its help. The said National Commission requested the Flag Officer and Commandant in Chief to look into the matter. The latter with¬out properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case communicated to the petitioner on 28th October, 1997 that as he had been dismissed from Navy service with disgrace, and as such was not entitled to any pensionary benefit. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 28th October, 1997 the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No.11180 of 1998 alleging that the opposite parties had not properly appreciated his case, inasmuch as the order of his dismissal from Navy Serv¬ice being not in terms of Section 81(1)(c) of The Navy Act, 1957 but was dismissal simpliciter under Section 81(1)(e), he was entitled to pensionary benefits. After receiving notice the opposite parties entered appearance in the Writ application and filed their counter-affidavit taking the stand that the dismissal from service of the petitioner was in terms of Section 81(1)(c) of the Navy Act and, as such, he was not entitled to any pension. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that in place of Regulation 15(2), it had been wrongly mentioned as Regulation 15(1) in the order in question and as such the petitioner who had been dismissed from service with disgrace was not entitled to any pension. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that in place of Regulation 15(2), it had been wrongly mentioned as Regulation 15(1) in the order in question and as such the petitioner who had been dismissed from service with disgrace was not entitled to any pension. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that a person who faced order of dismissal simpliciter was entitled to claim pension; whereas a person who is dismissed from service with disgrace had no right to claim pension under Regulation 15(1) of the Navy Pension Regulations, 1964. This Court further observed that as the petitioner had faced dismissal simpliciter, his claim for pension was to be considered under Regulation 15(2) of the aforesaid Regulations. This Court therefore quashed the impugned communication that the petitioner was not entitled to pension and directed the opposite parties to consider his case afresh. In consonance with the aforesaid direction of this Court the matter was once again considered by the opposite parties and by order dated 11th June, 2001 (Annexure-5/A) the petitioner was once again intimated that his request for grant of pensionary benefits had been turned down. Being aggrieved by the said order Annexure-5/A, the petitioner has again approached this Court with the present Writ application. 3. After receiving notice a counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties practically reiterating the stand taken in the earlier Writ application (OJC No.11180 of 1998). 4. Heard Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bharati Das, learned coun¬sel appearing for the opposite parties. Relying on Annexure-3, the order passed by the Court Martial, Mr. Patnaik submitted that the said authority found the petitioner guilty of two charges under Section 54(2) of the Navy Act and one charge under Section 406 IPC read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act and adjudging the guilt sentenced him to suffer six calendar months rigorous im¬prisonment as a class ‘A’ prisoner and further directed that he be dismissed from service and to suffer consequential penalties involved. The said sentence was subsequently modified to four months rigorous imprisonment. According to Mr. Patnaik a dismiss¬al simpliciter and not with disgrace does not disentitle the petitioner to get pensionary benefits. Mrs. The said sentence was subsequently modified to four months rigorous imprisonment. According to Mr. Patnaik a dismiss¬al simpliciter and not with disgrace does not disentitle the petitioner to get pensionary benefits. Mrs. Das on the other hand submitted that a number of allegations as to malfeasance and mis¬feasance and also misappropriation of Government funds having been proved against the petitioner he had been dismissed from Naval Service. He having been convicted of such grave charges it should be held that he was dismissed with disgrace and the authorities rightly refused him pensionary benefits. 5. Section 81 of Chapter IX of the Navy Act, 1957 provides punishment. The relevant portions of the said Section read as follows:- “81. (1) The following punishments may be inflicted under this Act, namely :- punishment. (a) death; (b) imprisonment which may be for the term of life or any other lesser term; (c) dismissal with disgrace from the naval service; (d) detention; (e) dismissal from the naval service; (f) forfeiture of seniority in rank in the case of officers; (g) forfeiture of time for promotion in the case of subordinate officers; (h) dismissal from the ship to which the offender belongs; (i) disrating, in the case of subordinate and petty officers and persons holding leading rates; (j) fine, in respect of civil offences; (k) mullets of pay and allowances (l) severe reprimand or reprimand (m) forfeiture of pay, head money, bounty, salvage, prize money and allowances earned by, and all annuities, pensions gratuities, medals and decorations granted to, the offender of any one or more of the above particulars; also in the case of desertion, of all clothes and effects left by the deserter in the ship to which he belongs; (n) such minor punishments as are inflicted according to the custom of the navy or may from time to time be prescribed. (2) Each of the punishments specified in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be inferior in degree to every punishment preceding it in the above scale.” Section 81(1) thus stipulates two types of dismissal as punishment, i.e., Clause (c) thereof deals with dismissal with disgrace from Naval Service while Clause (e) deals with dismissal from Naval Service simpliciter. Sub-section (3) of Section 82 stipulates that punishment of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years shall in all cases be accompanied by sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Naval Service. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 82 stipulates that punishment of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years shall in all cases be accompanied by sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Naval Service. 6. In the case at hand, the petitioner had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment only for four calendar months and that too as a class ‘A’ prisoner. Chapter II of the Navy Pension Regulations, 1964 deals with commissioned officers. Regulation 15 thereof deals with officers dismissed, discharged, etc. and stipulates that no pension shall be granted to an officer dis¬missed with disgrace from service. On the other hand, Regulation 15(2) stipulates that in the case of an officer who is dismissed otherwise than with disgrace from service, the question whether any pension shall be granted and if so the rate of such pension, shall be decided by the Central Government; provided that pension if granted shall not exceed the rate which would have been admis¬sible to him if he had retired on the same day. 7. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid Act and Regula¬tions thus leads to an irresistible conclusion that not only two types of dismissal are provided under the Act- one dismissal simpliciter, and the other dismissal with disgrace, the Regula¬tions also provide how to deal with the question of punishment. Thus there remains no doubt in mind that only those persons dismissed from service with disgrace are not entitled to any pension. On the other hand, an officer dismissed simpliciter would be entitled to pensionary benefits. The Regulations, however, stipulate that what would be the quantum of pension payable to such person has to be decided by the Central Government in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The order of the Court Martial reads as follows : “The Court having found the accused Lieutenant Swapan Kumar Mishra (02839 A) guilty of two charges under Section 54(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 one charge under Section 406 IPC read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 adjudges the said Lieutenant Swapan Kumar Mishra (02839 A) to suffer six (6) calendar month’s rigor¬ous imprisonment as a Class A prisoner, to be dismissed from the Naval Service and to suffer the consequential penalties involved.” (Emphasis Supplied) The substantive sentence has been subsequently reduced to four months. Thus it is very clear that the petitioner had only been dismissed from Naval Service and such punishment was in conso¬nance with Section 81(1)(e) of the Navy Act. Thus this Court finds that he is entitled to pensionary benefits as per the Navy Pension Regulations. 9. In the result this Court allows the Writ Petition, quashes the order Annexure 5-A and directs the opposite parties to take expeditious steps for calculation of pension of the peti¬tioner from the date of his entitlement and disburse the same to him within a period of six months from service of Writ of this Court. Petition allowed.