Mayadunne Corea J

The facts of the case are briefly as follows, the Petitioner was recruited to Sri Lanka Airforce in 1993 and at the time he received the impugned document A8, the Petitioner was serving as a Warrant Officer attached to the Weerawila Camp. The Petitioner states that he was assigned to duties of frontline logistics at the said camp. The Petitioner further states that he was then directed to assist in the supply section of the camp. The Petitioner states it was discovered that an airwoman had forged internal exchange vouchers to conceal irregularities in the supply unit of the camp and an inquiry was conducted to ascertain the personnel involved in the deficiency of stock. Following an inquiry, the Petitioner was charged with wrongful conduct and was reprimanded in addition to the Petitioner and the other soldiers involved in the misconduct, being subject to the recommendations issued by the inquiring committee.

The Petitioner states that on or about 22/12/2014, he received a letter from the 3^rd Respondent stating that his services were no longer required under and in terms of Regulation 126 (1), Fifth Schedule, Table B, Section XIII, (a) of the Sri Lankan Air Force (Regular & Regular Reserve) Regulations, 1949. The Petitioner states that by sending the said letter the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd Respondents have acted contrary to the provisions of the Air Force Act and the said letter is bad in law. Hence this application.

The Petitioners complaint The Petitioner’s main grounds of argument are threefold, namely;

 Subsequent to the Petitioner being reprimanded, the decision of the Air Force Commander to discharge the Petitioner on the premise that his services are no longer required is in violation of the principle of double jeopardy.

 The procedure followed especially subjecting the Petitioner to a summary trial and the subsequent decision by the Air Force Commander to discharge the Petitioner is bad in law as the Air Force Regulations, Table B of the Fifth Schedule , Regulation 13 does not permit the discharge of a Warrant officer.

 The Petitioner cannot be discharged under section 129 (1) read with section 42 of the Air Force Act, as for a discharge under the said section, there should be a conviction upon a court martial.

The Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs among other things,

(b) Grant a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Respondent to discharge the Petitioner from Sri Lanka Air Force in relation to the alleged incident as contained in the document marked as A-8.

(c) Grant a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Prohibition preventing the Respondents from discharging the Petitioner from Sri Lanka Air Force in relation to the alleged incident as contained in document marked as A-8.

(d) Order to reinstate the Petitioner with back wages and other benefits.

The Respondents took several objections pertaining to the maintainability of this application. They are as follows;

 The Petitioner is guilty of suppression and misrepresentation of material facts,

 Petitioner’s application is misconceived in law,

 Petitioner is guilty of laches and is not entitled to seek discretionary remedy by way of a writ,

 Futility,

 There are no grounds to grant a writ of Certiorari or Prohibition.

This Court will consider the said objections after considering the grounds urged by the Petitioner. As per the submissions of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner, his main contention was, for the Petitioner to be discharged from the Air Force, the Petitioner should have been charged at a court martial and convicted under section 129(1). The thirst of this argument was that there was no court martial held and as there is no conviction under section 129(1) by court-martial, the decision to discharge him is ultra vires. His second argument was that when he was found guilty of the alleged offence at the Weerawila camp, subsequent to an inquiry, the Petitioner was reprimanded as punishment. Thus, he argues tha