JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Leave granted.

The appellant was a permanent Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army holding the substantive rank of Major. While he was posted at the Military Farm in Jullunder City he was served with a notice dated September 10, 1990 issued under the directions and on behalf of the Chief of the Army Staff calling upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 ( Act for short) read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 ( Rules for short) for the misconducts he was found to have committed during his tenure as the Officer in-charge of the Military Farm, Jaipur. The misconducts are set out in paragraph 3 of the notice but as they are not germane for the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to detail them. The reasons which prompted the Chief of the Army Staff to take recourse to the above provisions of the Act and the Rules are contained in paragraph 4 of the notice, which reads as under:

"And whereas the Chief of the Army Staff is further satisfied that your trial for the above misconduct is impracticable having become time barred by the time the Court of inquiry was finalised and he is of the opinion that your further retention in service is undesirable."

In due course the appellant showed cause against his proposed termination of services but it did not find favour with the authorities. Hence, on their recommendations, the Central Government issued an order on February 28, 1992 terminating the service of the appellant. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. In assailing the order of termination the principal ground that was raised by the appellant was that the provisions of Section 19 of the Act and Rule 14 of the Rules could not be invoked as the period of limitation prescribed under Section 122 of the Act for holding his trial by a Court Martial was long over. Besides, it was contended that the satisfaction of the authorities that it was impracticable to hold the trial was not obtained in accordance with Rule 14. The appellant also denied that he was guilty of the misconducts alleged in the notice and gave out his defence against the same.

The learned Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the order under challenge and directed that the appellant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In passing the above order the learned Judge firstly held that the appellant was made a scape goat for the lapses and delinquencies of others. As regards the applicability of Section 19 of the Act and Rule 14 of the Rules the learned Judge concurred with the submissions of the appellant relying principally upon the Division Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Lt. Col. (T.S.) H.C. Dhingra v. Union of India & Anr.1.

In appeal preferred by the respondent-Union of India a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the above judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. The Division Bench held that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in H.C. Dhingra s case (supra) was not correct and that proceedings under Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Rules could be taken even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 122 of the Act. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge in favour of the appellant were also upset. The above order of the Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal.

To appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Ramachandran in support of the appeal it will be appropriate to first refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 19 of the Act reads as under :

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulation made thereunder the Central Government may dismiss or remove from the service, any person subject to this Act."

The other Section of the Act which need reproduction is Section 122 which, at the material time, stood as under :

"