The power to dismiss a person from service under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 18(1) of the Air Force Rules is an independent and different power from the power comprised in the provisions of the Air Force Act dealing with Court Martials.

( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated January 4, 1999 in c. W. P. No. 984/1996 whereby the order of the Air Officer, commanding in Chief, dated on August 21, 1995, dismissing the respondent from service and the order of the Appellate authority dated January 11, 1996 maintaining the order of the air Officer, Commanding in Chief, dated August 21, 1995 were set aside with consequential direction to reinstate the respondent. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows:-

( 2 ) THE respondent herein was enrolled as Combatant member in the Air Force on October 29, 1979. In course of time he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. On July 5, 1993 he was posted as Laboratory Assistant in 810 Signal Unit force. On the morning of April 25, 1995, a patient, Ms. Suman kumari Verma (hereinafter called the complainant ), aged about 17 years, daughter of Junior Warrant Officer, Vijay kumar Verma, came to the MI Room and was examined by the medical Officer, Dr. Mrs. B. Mote. She advised Ms. Suman Kumari for blood hb% and urine routine examination. Accordingly, the complainant with the prescription slip of Dr. Mote approached the respondent as he was the Laboratory Assistant. The respondent after drawing sample of blood from the complainant made the members of his staff, Ms. Ramoti Devi and ms. Risalo Devi to leave the laboratory. After the staff left the laboratory, he handed over some cotton wool to the complainant and asked her to go to the toilet and clean her genitals. He also asked her to wait for him in the toilet as he would help her in collecting the urine sample. The respondent followed the complainant to the toilet with a test tube and made her sit on the toilet seat. Thereafter, he started rubbing the test tube against her genitals. The complainant protested and told the respondent to go away. Thereafter, the respondent left the toilet. The respondent having left the toilet, the complainant bolted the door from inside and started crying. She waited in the toilet till the arrival of other people in the laboratory. Coming out of the toilet, she left for her home. On reaching home she narrated the incident to her mother.

( 3 ) AT about 10. 15 a. m. the same day, viz. April 25, 1995, Mrs. Rano Devi, mother of the complainant, went to the mi Room and caught hold of the respondent by his collar. She shouted at him for having outraged the modesty of her daughter.

( 4 ) WRITTEN statements of the complainant, Mrs. Rano devi, Mrs. K. Jhulka, WD O. P. Sharma and the respondent were recorded on the same day. On April 27, 1995, charges were framed against the respondent. He was charged under section 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950, for having used criminal force to a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty. The respondent was also charged u/s 65 of the Air force Act, 1950, for having committed an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Commanding Officer summary of evidence was recorded. During the course of recording of summary of evidence opportunity was granted to the respondent to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce any witness in his defence. On May 9, 1995, the respondent was informed that his case had been referred to the Competent Authority for the purpose of convening a District Court Martial. On may 18, 1995, a copy of Summary of Evidence along with exhibits, copy of formal charge sheet and list of witnesses was forwarded to the respondent by the Station Adjutant. Though no District Court Martial was convened, a show cause notice was instead issued on behalf of the AOC~in-C Western air Command, to the respondent on July 14, 1995, which inter alia stated that the respondent while posted in 801 SU AF as laboratory Assistant at MI room used criminal force against ms. Suman Kumari Verma with the intention of outraging her modesty. The respondent in consonance with Rule 18 (1) of the a