The reinstatement of the Petitioner and his continuous service allowed for punishment to be inflicted, and the provisions of the Army Act and the Rules were followed.

Pradeep Kant, J.

Heard the Petitioner in person and Sri. Yogesh Kesharwani for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 11.9.1984 on the post of clerk, as Non-Commissioned Officer (in short N.C.O.) and remained in service for 11 years and 141 days. While posted at Gangtok Military hospital since September, 1993, he was served with a notice of discharge in February, 1995. The notice of discharge was challenged by the Petitioner in the Sikkim High Court by means of Writ Petition No. 2 of 1995, in which initially a restraint order was passed directing the army authorities not to give effect to the letter of discharge dated 14th February, 1995.

3. The writ petition was, however, disposed of vide order dated 19.8.1995 saying that the Petitioner without availing the departmental remedy has approached the Court straightaway, and therefore, liberty was given to the Petitioner to file a statutory complaint with the appropriate authority. The Petitioner appears to have filed a statutory complaint but it is not much of significance as the Respondent after the interim order having been passed in favour of the Petitioner, reinstated the Petitioner in service and informed him in writing that no further order shall be issued. It was also disclosed to the Petitioner that the Petitioner could send statutory complaint to the authority concerned when any discharge certificate is served upon him. Since the notice of discharge was not acted upon and the movement order was cancelled, which was never issued again, he continued to remain in service.

4. It appears that thereafter the Petitioner was served with an order of transfer on 20.11.1995, which again was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 50 of 1995 in the Sikkim High Court. In the said writ petition the Petitioner also claimed compensation on various counts because of his harassment during the period between passing of the order of discharge dated 14th February and the date when he was reinstated in service at Gangtok.

5. The Respondent in the aforesaid writ petition took the defence about unworthiness of the Petitioner of being an Army Officer and that of his service record being bad all throughout and that lastly in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner had been inflicted punishment of dismissal from service, and, therefore, the aforesaid writ petition filed against the transfer order did not have any merit. The Sikkim High Court finding that the Petitioner has been dismissed from service refused to grant any relief to the Petitioner, the writ petition having been filed against the order for transfer. The claim for compensation was also denied finding no merit in the same.

6. However, the High Court while refusing to make pronouncement upon the dismissal order observed that the Petitioner can take shelter as provided under the Statute and thus, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.2.1996. The order of punishment namely ; reduction in rank and dismissal from service was passed on 2nd February, 1996.

7. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment dated 2nd February, 1996 and also for certain other reliefs but the Petitioner confined his remedies only for the relief of setting aside the punishment order, quashing of proceedings of summary court martial and also setting aside the order passed on statutory complaint.

8. Raising challenge against the impugned order the Petitioner, mainly urged almost the same grounds which he had taken in the statutory petition filed u/s 164(2) of the Army Act. It has been submitted by the Petitioner that once the Petitioner stood discharged from service by means of the notice of discharge from service dated 14.2.1995, he could neither have been proceeded with, with summary court martial nor any punishment could have been inflicted upon him including the puni