- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Gupta for respon dents.
(2.) THE petitioner was discharged from the Army vide order dated 17-11-1989 Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit. He has challenged this order by means of this petition. This Court should not ordinarily in terfere in Army matters as this interferes with the discipline and efficiency of the Army, particularly when there is a statutory provision of appeal in the Army Act vide Section 26. If he is so advised he may file an appeal under the above provision. This Court should exercise restraint in such mat ters pertaining to the Army and ordinarily leave the discipline in the Army to the authorities under the Army Act itself. It is only in very rare cases that this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitu tion in matters pertaining to the Army. The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petition dismissed. .;