B.L. Hansaria, J.— By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are three in number, have assailed the order dated 21.11.81 issued and signed by the General Court Martial directing the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for different periods mentioned in the order and to be dismissed from service. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the trial before the General Court Martial was in violation of Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954, hereinafter the Rules. Though this objection was taken before the General Court Martial and though it referred the matter to the convening authority on 23.10.81, the Court Martial came to be reassembled on 30.10.81 without the convening authority having decided the question of violation of Rule 22 of the Rules. There is no dispute before us that Rule 22 of the Rules is mandatory. This stand has been taken in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Prithi Pal Singh Bedi vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413 . In paragraph 37 of this judgment it has been clearly laid down that Rules 22 to 24 are mandatory in respect of every person subject to the Act other than an officer. In the present case it is an admitted position that the petitioners do not fall within the category of 'officers'. It may be stated that the stand of the prosecution before the General Court Martial was that compliance with Rule 22 was not mandatory and reliance was then placed on Flying Officer S. Sunderrajan vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 Delhi 29(FB). It is apparent that the ratio of this decision cannot help the prosecution on the face of the decision of the Apex Court in Prithi Pal Singh Bedi's case. In so far as the factual position regarding violation of Rule 22 is concerned, it may be stated that the General Court Martial has gone into this question on objection being raised and had examined Lt Col. Saxena who was the Commanding Officer during whose tenure the occurrence had taken place. Our attention has been invited by Shri Khetri to the evidence of Lt. Col. Saxena who stated (see page 8 of the records) that in so far as accused 2 and 3 (6364271 Sep.(L/NK/SNT) Mr. Wani and 6373220 Sep/SHGD Ramji Singh), who are petitioners Nos. Saxena who was the Commanding Officer during whose tenure the occurrence had taken place. Our attention has been invited by Shri Khetri to the evidence of Lt. Col. Saxena who stated (see page 8 of the records) that in so far as accused 2 and 3 (6364271 Sep.(L/NK/SNT) Mr. Wani and 6373220 Sep/SHGD Ramji Singh), who are petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 before us, are concerned they were not aware of the :harges against them for which the summary of evidence was recorded and so Rule 22 was not complied with qua these two petitioners. 2. In so far as petitioner No. 1 who was accused No. 1 before the General Court Martial is concerned, the submission of Shri Khetri is that the charge against him relating to which summary of evidence was taken, was violation of good order and discipline as would appear from Ext.AA. This violation attracts the mischief of section 63 of the Army Act. 1950. hereinafter the Act; but the charge which this petitioner ultimately faced was one of committing theft of property belonging to the Govt which is punishable under section 52 (a) of the Act as would appear from Ext.B (2); as such, Rule 22 of the rules was violated in his case also. 3. Shri Chetia. learned Central Govt Standing Counsel, realises these infirmities in the proceeding but submits that the petitioners should have taken recourse to sections 164 and 165 of the Act to ventilate their grievances. From the materials on record it appears that representations were made against the finding and sentence awarded by the General Court Martial before the confirming authority. The order of the confirming authority had. however, not been received by the time the petitioners had approached this Court in April. 1982. The orders of the confirming authority were, however, passed in May. 1982 which were challenged by amending the writ petition. We have gone through the order passed by the learned confirming authority and it has merely stated that "I confirm the finding and sentence of the Court". From this single line statement it is not possible to know whether the grievancces raised by the petitioner have been duly considered by the confirming authority or not. We have gone through the order passed by the learned confirming authority and it has merely stated that "I confirm the finding and sentence of the Court". From this single line statement it is not possible to know whether the grievancces raised by the petitioner have been duly considered by the confirming authority or not. Shri Chetia urges that the petitioners could have moved further application to the Central Govt or the Chief of Army Staff or any prescribed officer superior in command to one who confirmed such finding or sentence as provided in section 164 (2) of the Act. It is correct that the petitioners could have taken recourse to these avenues but nothing has been placed before us to show that for want of any action under the aforesaid provision, the present petition would not be maintainable. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we would hold that the proceeding before the General Court Martial was in violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 22 of the Rules. We are therefore constrained to set aside the orders convicting and sentencing the petitioners to various terms of imprisonment and dismissing .them from service. The Rule is. therefore, made absolute. Under the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.