The court emphasized that the petitioner's unwillingness to continue in employment justified his discharge, and the medical opinion supported the decision. The court also highlighted the importance of following the appeal process for disability pension.

( 1 ). Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner from service the present petition is filed in this court seeking for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also sought for an alternative relief in this case seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension and other pensionary benefits in accordance with the Rules.

( 2 ). The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian army on 16/1/1987. While serving with 404 intermediate Repair workshop, he was admitted to military Hospital, Ahmedabad due to his disability viz. Neurosis (ICD-300 ). In view of the aforesaid disability the petitioner was down graded to low medical category BEE (Temporary) for six months from 4/4/1994. On review he was again placed in the same category for six months from 3/10/1994. Thereafter the petitioner was re-examined by the medical Board and he was down graded to category bee (Permanent) w. e. f. 3/4/1995. The Officer commanding of 404 Intermediate Repair Workshop issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter dated 23/5/1995 stating that the petitioner had been down graded to lower medical category BEE (Permanent) w. e. f. 3/4/1995 for two years vide order dated 16/5/1995. By the said notice the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service being permanent Low Medical Category person.

( 3 ). In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner submitted a reply on 27/9/1995 in which the petitioner had stated that he had completed 8 years 8 months of service in corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (EME ). It was also stated that he was not willing to serve in his present medical category and that he might be discharged from service on medical grounds. After receipt of the aforesaid reply from the petitioner the respondents issued orders discharging petitioner from service under item 3 (v) of table annexed to Rule 13 (3) of the Army Rules, 1954 on 31/3/1996. Consequent upon his discharge from his service disability pension claim in his favour was preferred to CCDA (Allahabad) for adjudication. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was however, rejected by order dated 21/5/1997 on the ground that the disability of the individual was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and unconnected with service being a constitutional disease and not related to service. The petitioner was paid invalid gratuity and DCRG which were in the nature of terminal benefits. The fact regarding the rejection of his disability pension as communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20/6/1997 with advice to prefer an appeal against disability pension within six months from 21/5/1997 but the petitioner did not submit any appeal within the stipulated time. The petitioner served a legal notice on the respondents and thereafter filed the present petition only in the month of January, 2001.

( 4 ). It was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that a person could be discharged from the Army service under the provisions of section 22 of the Army Act in the manner prescribed under the Rules. The relevant rule in the present case is rule 13 under which action was taken by the respondent. It was submitted by him that under Rule 13 (3) action could be taken against the petitioner for his discharge in the manner prescribed in the said Rules. According to him the Competent Authority who is authorised to discharge in the case of the petitioner was Brigade/sub-Area Commander as the case of the petitioner would fall either under clause (v) or clause (iv ). He submitted that in the instant case the order of discharge was passed not by the Brigade/sub-Area Commander but by the officer Commanding and therefore, the said order is required to be quashed. It was also submitted by him that the petitioner was not discharged at his own request as