- (1.) The petitioner was recruited to the service of Indian Air Force on Mar. 9, 1959. He later became Sergeant. Subsequently, he was confirmed. While working in the C. O. D. Shed at No. 29 E. D. Air Force Kanpur, a charge-sheet dated May 22, 1975 was served upon him. The petitioner was charged of having dishonestly misappropriated various items of property belonging to the Air Force. The facts were investigated into and on finding evidence Court of Inquiry was constituted, in which the petitioner had been given full opportunity to examine witnesses. It was only when the Court of Inquiry had investigated into the facts, the Air Officer Commander-in-chief of the Maintenance Command, in exercise of his powers under sub-see (3) of S. 20 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) decided to issue a show cause notice instead of holding a general Court-martial. Thereupon, in exercise of powers under sub-sec. (3) of S. 20 of the Act read with R. 18 of the Air Force Rules. 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated Aug. 12, 1976 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. The Head Quarters Maintenance Command thereupon decided to dismiss the petitioner on Oct. 28, 1976. This order of dismissal was duly conveyed to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. By a communication dated Apr. 11, 1977, the petitioner was informed that his appeal was duly considered by the Chief of the Air Staff and the same had been rejected. The petitioner then filed the present petition in this Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions before us.
(3.) Firstly, it has been contended that he petitioner having been charged with allegations of dishonest misappropriation of properties and forgery and these charges being specifically referred to Sections 52 (b), 65, 68 and 71, he could not have been dismissed on the basis of these charges by the opposite parties, except upon trial by a Court-martial and as such the dismissal order is without jurisdiction.;