JUDGMENT

P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner assails the order of dis¬charge from Army service and prays for a direction to absorb him in service forthwith.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s case is that, he is a Non-Matric, had applied for appointment as a Soldier (G.D.) in the Army, he was called for screening test/interview which he attended on 13.8.1997. The petitioner having been found suitable, got selected and enrolled as a Soldier (S.H.G.D) and was sent for training to A.O.C. Centre, Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was given training in general duty, trade and also underwent physical training and other exercises. He was allowed to draw a basic pay of Rs. 2440/-. Petitioner claims that he complet¬ed the training for the post of Soldier successfully in the month of November, 1998 in opposite party no. 2’s Training Centre and was assigned with Identity Card bearing Army No. 6939820-K, Trade SHGD with Rank-Soldier, However, when the petitioner was awaiting for a posting order, he was shocked to receive a movement order dated 17.11.1998 from the Captain (opp. party No. 3) discharging him from Army Service under Rule 13(3) IV of the Army Rules. A copy of the discharge order has been annexed as Annexure 6. The petitioner made a representation to opp. party No. 3 to re-con¬sider the order of discharge, but no action was taken thereon. According to the petitioner, the order of discharge is illegal, arbitrary and has been passed by an authority lacking jurisdic¬tion in terms of the Army Act.

3. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations and the claim made in the writ petition. It is the specific stand of the opposite parties that the peti¬tioner during his training, was indisciplined, arrogant and disin¬terested in training. He had the tendency to remain absent from parades. After undergoing basic military training while he was undergoing trade training, he was given ample opportunity to improve himself but he continued to be so. Such an individual was found to be a burden to the disciplined organization like army and against its interest. He was, therefore, discharged, while as a trainee under Rule 13(3) IV of the Army Rules. Petitioner’s claim that, he had made a representation against the order of discharge, has been disputed and it is stated that they had received an unsigned typed letter for reconsideration of the discharge order but no action was taken thereon because it could not be ascertained as to whether the petitioner himself had submitted the letter. It is emphatically stated in the counter that the petitioner has not completed one phase of the training and was undergoing trade training when he was discharged. It is averred that the movement order issued to the petitioner clearly mentions the cause of discharge as being unlikely to become an efficient soldier. The petitioner was marched upto Commandant, AOC Centre on the laid down forum and he was interviewed by the Commandant before signing the discharge order and, therefore, the plea that the petitioner was not given a chance of hearing, has been de¬nied. It is further stated that the pay of a recruit was Rs. 2440/- which the petitioner was getting, but a trained soldier gets a pay of Rs. 2850/- A copy of the order of the Senior Ac¬counts Officer indicating the pay of trainees and recruits is annexed as Annexure-A/1 in support of such stand.

4. It appears from the movement order (Annexure-6) that he petitioner was issued with the movement order under Army Rules 13(3)IV being discharged from Army service since he was found “Unlikely to become an efficient soldier”. The movement order has been signed by the Captain Coy Cdr. SHCD. Coy Under Rule 13(3)IV of the Army Rules, each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table is the competent authority to discharge from service persons subject to the Act specified in Column-1 thereof on the grounds specified in Column-2.

5. In case of person enrolled under the Ar