JUDGMENT :

(Sanjeev Kumar, J.)

1. This intra Court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against a judgment dated 25th March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in a writ petition SWP No.2129/2001 titled Ex-Havaldar Angrej Singh v. Union of India and others, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter “writ petitioner”) has been allowed and the order of his discharge from the Service passed by the appellants has been quashed. There is a further direction by the Writ Court to treat the writ petitioner in service for such period as would be sufficient to entitle him for pensionary and retiral benefits.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, we deem it appropriate to take notice of few material facts.

3. Writ petitioner came to be enrolled in Indian Army as Sepoy on 05.09.1972. In the year 1979, when he was availing 60 days annual leave, the writ petitioner crossed over to Pakistan alongwith two civilians of his village, namely, Rattan Singh and Mohinder Singh and accepted Rs.100/- as gratification/remuneration from Pakistanis. This fact of his crossing over to Pakistan was not disclosed by the writ petitioner to anyone in the Army on rejoining from annual leave. However, it was later revealed to the Army Authorities by the Intelligence Agencies.

4. Since the writ petitioner had crossed over to Pakistan and had not even disclosed the said fact to the Army Authorities, he was awarded “severe reprimand” under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 [“the Army Act”].

5. It seems that the Government of India as also the Army Authorities had been receiving complaints against some army men, who were crossing over to Pakistan and working against the interests of the nation and, as such, under the instructions of Government of India, such elements in the Army were identified and thrown out from service. It also came to the notice of the Army Authorities that the writ petitioner was also one such element, who was involved in alleged subversive activities detrimental not only to military discipline but also to the security of the Nation.

6. Accordingly, the Army Authorities invoked Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 [“the Army Rules”] and put the writ petitioner on show cause notice on 07.06.1986. The show cause notice was replied by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner virtually accepted the charge but requested that he may be permitted to continue for some more time so that he completes qualifying service tenure of 15 years so as to become entitled to pension. The Competent Authority did not accept the request of the writ petitioner and, accordingly, discharged him from the Service on 11.7.1986. At the time of his discharge, the writ petitioner was having total 14 years, 2 months and 07 day’s service in the Army and, therefore, was held not entitled to any pension. However, all other due retiral benefits like AFPP Fund Balance, Credit Balance and Service Gratuity etc were released in his favour.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition SWP No.2129/2001, which was contested by the Army Authorities. The sole plea which was taken by the writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that he having been reprimanded for the same offence could not have been tried again and inflicted the punishment of discharge from service. Though, the Writ Court has not said it in so many words but it clearly comes out from a reading of the judgment that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed on the ground that the writ petitioner could not have been subjected to two punishments for the same offence. It is this judgment of the Writ Court dated 25.03.2009, which is called in question before us in this appeal.

8. Mr. R.S.Jamwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Army Authorities vehemently conten