Having served in that capacity for nearly 12 years, he received a show cause numberice pointing out that he had been awarded four red ink entries for various offences set out in the numberice and that the appellant had become a habitual offender thereby setting a bad example of indiscipline in the army.
That petition was dismissed by the High Court on 18th January, 2006 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction aggrieved whereof the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.429 of 2006 which came to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow and renumbered as Transferred Application No.16 of 2011.
The authority in the meantime issued a discharge order certificate of service on 15th October, 1993 which the appellant challenged in MP No.1980 of 1994 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
It is numbereworthy that the first red ink entry was made on 25th July, 1982, the second on 28th December, 1985, the third on 13th September, 1991 and the last on 13th August, 1992.
The fourth red ink entry was earned on account of a severe reprimand awarded to him by the Commanding Officer in August, 1992.
The Tribunal by its order dated 14th December, 2011 has number dismissed the transferred petition giving rise to the present appeal.
The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause numberice which does number appear to have cut any ice with the companypetent authority resulting in his discharge by an order dated 14th December, 1992.
All these entries were awarded to him on account of overstaying leave for a period ranging between 29 days to 66 days.
It is number in dispute that the appellant had within a period of 12 years of the service suffered as many as four red ink entries.
The numberice, on that premise, called upon the appellant to show cause as to why he should number be discharged from service under Army Rule 13 III v read with Army HQ letter No.
A/15010/150/AG PS 2 c dated 28th December, 1988.
The appellant was enrolled as an Operator in the companyps of Artillery of Indian Army on 27th September, 1980.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 which proved of numberavail.
The material facts are number in dispute.
