JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - 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-sec. (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 ails made three submissions before us. 3. Firstly, it has been contended that the 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. 4. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel but we are unable to agree. 5. Chap. VI of the Act relates to offences. 4. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel but we are unable to agree. 5. Chap. VI of the Act relates to offences. S. 52 deals with offences in respect of property. S. 65 deals with offences relating to violation of good order and air force discipline. S. 68 refers to abetment of offence and S. 71 deals with civil offences. These offences are triable by a Court-martial, and the person convicted is liable to be punished by sentences mentioned in these provisions. Chap. VII of the Act deals specifically with punishments. Section 73 generally deals with punishments awardable by Courts-martial-Cl. (f) of S. 73 also includes dismissal from service as awardable by Courts-martial, S. 74 deals with alternative punishments awardable by Courts-martial. There is no warrant for the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that merely because a person is charged of allegations which are referable to these sections contained in Chap. VI of the Act, which constitute offences under the Act and are duly triable by Court-martial and liable to be convicted if found guilty, then he cannot be proceeded with in the disciplinary jurisdiction vested with the authorities, which includes the power to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank. Chap. IV of the Act deals with condition of service. Section 20 occurring in this Chap. deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank by the Chief of Air Staff and other Officers. Sub-sec. (3) of this section empowers an officer having power not less than an Air Officer In charge of Command or equivalent commander or any prescribed Officer to dismiss or remove from service any person serving under his Command other than an officer or a warrant officer. 6. The action taken by the authorities in the instant case is in due exercise of power under this sub-section of S. 20. The show cause notice which has been issued to the petitioner is under sub-section (3) of S. 20 of the Act read with R. 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969. 6. The action taken by the authorities in the instant case is in due exercise of power under this sub-section of S. 20. The show cause notice which has been issued to the petitioner is under sub-section (3) of S. 20 of the Act read with R. 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969. R. 18 in substance provides that except in cases where an officer is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court or court-martial he shall be liable to be dismissed or removed under subsection (1) or (3) of S. 20 of the Act only, upon his being informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and after being allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reason he may have to urge before it. 7. Learned counsel in this connection has also placed reliance upon sub-sec. (7) of S. 20 of the Act which provides that the exercise of any power under S. 20 of the Act shall be subject to other provisions contained in the Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder. Sub-sec. (7), in our view, does not militate against the view taken by us above. 8. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that there is nothing in the Act or the Rules to bar disciplinary action being taken in accordance with S. 20 of the Act and the rules relevant thereto, resulting in passing of an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank as contemplated thereunder, upon the basis of allegations which may also constitute offences under Chap. VI of the Act. 9. In the counter-affidavit, it has been categorically asserted that instead of directing the petitioner to be tried by a court-martial, it was decided to issue a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service in due exercise of powers contained under sub-section (3) of S. 20 of the Act read with R. 18 of the Rules. 10. Learned counsel in support of his contention has also referred to the decision of this Court in S.R. Tripathi v. State AIR 1964 All 371 ). The point involved or decision in the present case was not up for decision in the case cited by the learned counsel. 10. Learned counsel in support of his contention has also referred to the decision of this Court in S.R. Tripathi v. State AIR 1964 All 371 ). The point involved or decision in the present case was not up for decision in the case cited by the learned counsel. The decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Bakhshish Singh v. Court Martial (1972 Cri LJ 1630) has similarly no bearing on the point in issue. 11. The first submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel has no substance. 12. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been dismissed from service without proper opportunity having been afforded to him. We find no substance in this submission also of learned counsel. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he also submitted his explanation. The order of dismissal was passed after the petitioner's explanation had been submitted. The petitioner himself has stated in his petition that the Court of inquiry also investigated into the facts. It has been clearly averred in the counter-affidavit that full opportunity was given to the petitioner before the Court of Inquiry to cross-examine the witnesses produced, and also to produce his defence. We are, hence, unable to accept the submission that the petitioner was dismissed from service without any -reasonable opportunity having been afforded to him. 13. It has next faintly been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been illegally discriminated in as much as that though he has been dismissed from service, yet persons really responsible for the misappropriation have been let free and not punished. The petitioner has not in his petition laid specific facts to show that his case was similar to those of the other persons. On the other hand, in the-counter-affidavit, it has been clearly averred that the petitioner was the main brain behind this misappropriation. There is no -merit in this submission, also. 14. In the result, this petition fails and ss hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.