D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.10.1996. By means of the present review application, the said order has been sought to be reviewed on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record with regard to the fact as has been recorded in the order in paragraphs 8 & 9 that the petitioner did not request for his own discharge, though in fact the petitioner had so requested for his discharge. The second ground that was taken was that the Army cannot play with the career of an army personnel by using a back door method in discharging the petitioner when on the facts alleged the petitioner should have been subjected to Section 41 of the Army Act for the alleged disobedience. The third point that was taken that the order was signed by the Lt. Col. Who was not authorised to do so and the same ought to have been signed by a Brigadier in view of Army Rule 36 and as such the notice dated 14.4.1988 was wholly without jurisdiction. It was fourthly contended that a view has been taken in the impugned order which is contrary to the ratio decided in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., 1987 (4) SCC 611. He has also pointed out various other legal proposition with regard to the impugned order and contended that in law the views taken cannot be supported.
(2.) Admittedly an appeal has been filed by the petitioner being Special Appeal No. 43 of 1997 on 8.1.1997 whereas the review application was filed on 3.1.1997
(3.) Lt. Col. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner made elaborate arguments on all the points and had contended that with reference to the various documents on record that there was an error apparent on the face of the record with regard to the first point noted above and had relied on a decision in the case of Major Radha Krishna v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. (suppl) 3091, and contended that disobedience of the nature on which discharge was effected cannot be upheld. He also contends that 1985 policy is bad in law and the same could not be challenged in writ petition since it was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore he has sought to challenge the same by means of the present review application.;