R.K.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 865 of 1999 has been filed by the appellant writ petitioner, Sugreev Singh Desuriya, against the judgment and order dated 24 -11 -1995 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the Misc. Writ Petition No. 3320 of 1991 with the following observations : “In my opinion as the petitioner has not prayed for any relief against any punishment order either minor or major, but apprehending some punishment he has prayed for direction to the respondents not to discharge the petitioner prematurely. The main grievance shown by the petitioner with regard to the warning contained in Annexure No. 23, which refers to previous action taken against the petitioner and the warning by itself is not indicative of the ultimate order of discharge. In my opinion the warning issued to the petitioner as contained in the letter dated 5th April, 1990, is only to warn so that he may improve and mend himself by which his good acts and discipline may be reflected. In my opinion this warning by itself is neither any punishment nor any cognizance can be taken for interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. With regard to the administrative actions there is departmental remedy provided, which the petitioner has already availed. The petitioner has not prayed for quashing of any punishment awarded to him or any adverse order passed against him in the present writ petition. Moreover, as stated earlier, the petitioner has been discharged from service and whatever objection he has to raise the same can be looked into at the time of hearing of the validity of the action of discharge from the service. For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.”
(2.) SPECIAL Appeal No. 867 of 1999 has been filed by the appellant writ petitioner Sugreev Singh Desuriya against the judgment and order dated 18 -1 -1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4231 [S/S] of 1992, whereby, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: “The main relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition appears to be for quashing the order of discharge and for his continuance in service. The other reliefs relating to promotion etc. claimed in the petition could be considered only after the petitioner has been reinstated in services. In so far as the challenge to the warning letter issued to the petitioner, the warning by itself is neither any punishment nor in any manner it effects the reputation of the petitioner or casts any stigma or imputation. The warning has been issued to warn the petitioner to be careful and to mend his ways and activities as already sufficient adverse material has been placed on the service record and his case may be considered on the basis of service for action discharge. In my opinion, the warning does not in any manner prejudice the petitioner's case nor does it cast any stigma on his character and conduct. In fact the warning letter was given with the intention to warn the petitioner to be more cautious and be more careful in performance of his duties. The previous warning establishes the bona fides of the action taken against the petitioner and is in conformity with the rules and correct procedure. The award of the punishment entries are borne out from the material on record and thus punishment entries having been provisionally awarded against which the petitioner has already been afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. Coming to the order of discharge I am of the opinion that adverse material placed on record by the respondents fully justified, their caution and specially when in defence service an outstanding merit and discipline is required. The adverse material indicates that the respondents were fully justified in taking the above action. In my opinion, the order is neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant considerations and nor there is non -application mind by the concerned authority. The grounds raised in the petition do not establish that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.” Both the appeals are taken up together, as they relate to the same writ petitioner -appellant and are being decided by a common judgment.
(3.) WE have heard the appellant writ petitioner, Sugreev Singh Desuriya in person and Sri S.K. Rai, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government.;