In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.8,73 passed by the General Court Martial, H/Q-15 BRTF, Kohima convicting and sentencing the petitioner under sections 68 and 69of the Army Act, 1950 and the order dated 10.7.74 passed by respondent 2, Director General of Border Roads, Kashmir House, New Delhi confirming the aforesaid order and also the order No. F, 134(1255)/64 R& B dated 8.11.77 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Shipping and Trans­port, dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect in purported exercise of power under Rule 19 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for short -CCS (CCA) Rules." 2. The petitioner, while working at Bhagalpur in Bihar as a confir­med District Saving Officer in the National Swings Organisation, under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, was appointed as a Civilian Officer, Grade II in the General Reserve Engineer Force, for short "GREF", on 30.10.69 after due selection by the Union Public Service Commission. In the month of October, 1972 the petitioner was the Officer Commanding, for short "O. C.", of the 1642 Pioneer Company of the GREF, when the petitioner had to go on le we on account of a sudden bereavement in his family. On leave being duly granted, the petitioner handed over charge to Shri P. S. Ambermani, who acted as the Officiating O. C. o the said Pioneer Company during the petitioner's absence on leave. Sri Ambermani duly signed the Memorandum dated 12.10.72 of handing over and taking over charge, witnessing amongst other things that the stocks in the Company's canteen were correct and tae said correct stocks were taken over by Sri Ambermani. Sri Ambermani duly signed the Memorandum dated 12.10.72 of handing over and taking over charge, witnessing amongst other things that the stocks in the Company's canteen were correct and tae said correct stocks were taken over by Sri Ambermani. The said 1642 Pioneer Company had a canteen for the use and benefit of Unit Personnel, like all other canteens of the GREF and it was under the command of the petitioner as the O. C. After the Memorandum of handing over/taking over was duly signed by the petitioner and the officiating O. C. Sri Ambermani on 12.10.72, the petitioner started his journey from the interior of Nagaland near the Indo-Burma border on way to his home in Bihar and tie reached Dimapur on 14.10.72, and on 15.10.72 when he was about to proceed from Dimapur to his own town he was informed by the Stiff Officer, 2 (Personnel) of HQ, Chief Engineer Project Sewak, that he was required to report back to respondent 5, Ramchandran, Commander of 15 Border Road Task Force, for short "BRTF”, which is a GREF formation of which the petitioner's 1642 Pioneer Company was one of the constituent companies Accordingly, the petitioner reported to respondent 5 in the evening of 15.10 7 at Kohima where he was told by respondent 5 that Sri Ambermani had reported some shortage in the canteen stores and therefore he was required to go back to his Unit HQ to appear before a court of enquiry to be presided over by Sri M. P. Singh, Civilian Officer Grade-I to make investigation in respect of the aforesaid alleged shortage in the canteen. Accordingly, on 6th October, 1972, the petitioner started from Kohima with Sri M. P. Singh, who was at that time the Administrative Officer of HQ 15 BRTF and reached his Unit HQ on 17.10.72 where Sri M. P. Singh verified the canteen stocks and examined the witnesses during the next couple of days. Having concluded the court of enquiry, Sri M. P. Singh went back to the HQ of 15 BRTF and submitted the entire proceedings of the court of enquiry (first court of enquiry) to respondent 5. Sri M. P, Singh did not find any prima facie case of any stock shortage in the canteen. Having concluded the court of enquiry, Sri M. P. Singh went back to the HQ of 15 BRTF and submitted the entire proceedings of the court of enquiry (first court of enquiry) to respondent 5. Sri M. P, Singh did not find any prima facie case of any stock shortage in the canteen. The Chief Engineer of Project Sewak (a project of the GREF of which 15 BRTF is one of the task forces and the petitioner's Company is one of the constituents of the Task Force) accompanied by respondent 5 came to the petitioner's Unit HQ of 15 BRTF. The petitioner having accordingly reported at the HQ of 15 BRTF was asked by respondent 5 about his personal bank balance. When the petitioner stated that he had about Rs. 16.000/- in the bank, respondent 5 asked the petitioner to sign a cheque for Rs. 10,000/-in default of which the petitioner was threatened with dire consequences by respondent 5. The petitioner having signed a cheque under threat, also signed two pre-dated letters in respect of the aforesaid cheque which two letters were dictated by respondent 5 to his Stenographer who typed it out to be signed by the petitioner. Immediately thereafter respondent 5 physically took possession of the entire cheque book of the petitioner without asking the petitioner to hand over the cheque book to him. In the aforesaid two letters signed by the petitioner under threat from respondent 5 it was made to appear that the signing of the aforesaid cheque by the petitioner was voluntary. Subsequently on 6 8. 73, the petitioner was given a back dated receipt being Receipt No. 226 dated 26.10.72 showing that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- given by the petitioner by the cheque mentioned above was taken on account of canteen advance. A few days thereafter respondent 5 cancelled the first court of enquiry and ordered for a second court of enquiry in pursuance of which a summary of evidence was recorded subsequently under orders of respondent 5 on an additional charge of improperly employing at his residence for private purposes 5 personnel of his Unit (names are given in the petition). A few days thereafter respondent 5 cancelled the first court of enquiry and ordered for a second court of enquiry in pursuance of which a summary of evidence was recorded subsequently under orders of respondent 5 on an additional charge of improperly employing at his residence for private purposes 5 personnel of his Unit (names are given in the petition). On 5.8.73, respondent 5 who was at that time the Officiating Chief Engineer of Project Sewak issued the order convening a General Court Martial, for short "GCMT, to try the petitioner in respect of three charges mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 4.8.73 signed by respondent 5 as Commander of 15 BRTF (Annexure-I). Accordingly, the GCM was convened, the petitioner was tried on three charges and the GCM held the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid three charges on 29. 8.73 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months subject to confirmation by the confirming authority (Annexure-2). Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the petitioner submitted a petition under section 164 (1) and another petition under section 164 (2) of the Army Act. There was no order on the petition under the former section, but the other petitioner under section 164 (2) was rejected. The petitioner contends that he was charge sheeted and tried by the GCM for abetment of offences stated to have been committed by Pioneer V- N. Menon and the petitioner was convicted by the aforesaid GCM on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of Sri Menon, who was Canteen in Charge/Salesman of 1642 Pioneer Company. The said V. N. Menon was also tried by a. separate GCM for the substantive offence. 3. On 1.3.74 the petitioner was released from Officers' Mess after the term of sentence of the GCM was over. However, confir­mation of sentence was received only on 6. 8. 74. After the expiration of the period of the petitioner's sentence he was put back in service with all summary powers as delegated to him by Chief Engineer, During the period of the petitioner's service in GREF after the aforesaid GCM proceedings resulting in conviction and sentence of the petitioner, the petitioner exercised all the powers as the O. C. of his Unit including the summary powers and handled GREF fund amounting to several Lakhs of rupees at a time until 26. 11. 11. 77, when he was served with tae impugned order of dismissal dated 8. 11. 77 (Annexure-7). 4. The petitioner has assailed his conviction and sentence of the GCM and his removal from service mainly on the following grounds : (i) That the findings of the GCM were based on the uncor­roborated testimony of Pioneer V. N. Menon of 1642 Pioneer Company who himself was tried by another GCM for the substantive offence. (ii) That the petitioner was denied the right of engaging a defending officer of his choice before the GCM and a defending officer was imposed by respondent 5 against the expressed wishes of the petitioner. (iii) That all through the proceeding commencing with the first court of enquiry till the conclusion of G( M the petitioner was always kept away from his Unit 1642 Pioneer Company whereas the other accused, namely, Sri V. N. Menon and others were allowed to remain in the HQ. The petitioner requested respondent 5 to allow him to remain in the HQ for the purpose of his defence and requested him to remove Sri V. N. Menon and others so that they might not frame/fabricate a case against the petitioner, but this request was turned down. (iv) That the petitioner was tried by the GCM under the provisions of the Army Act and again the provisions for disciplinary jurisdiction under the CCS (CCA) Rules were applied to remove him from service. The authorities having elected to make a choice of the forum under the Army Act could not take recourse under the CCS (CCA) Rules, which was illegal and void as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (v) That after the conviction and sentence by the, GCM the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties with all the status and powers that he had prior to the GCM and continued to work as such for about 4 years. It was illegal on the part of the respondents to pass the order of dismissal which tantamounts to punishment twice for the same offence. 5. As seen from the charge sheet (Annexure I) the petitioner was charged as follows :- "CHARGE SHEET The accused No. CO-1134 Sita Ram Prasad, Civilian Officer Gde II, 1642 PNR COY (GREF) attached 15 BRTF, a person subject to the Army Act, 1950 under section 4(1) thereof and Govt. 5. As seen from the charge sheet (Annexure I) the petitioner was charged as follows :- "CHARGE SHEET The accused No. CO-1134 Sita Ram Prasad, Civilian Officer Gde II, 1642 PNR COY (GREF) attached 15 BRTF, a person subject to the Army Act, 1950 under section 4(1) thereof and Govt. of India Notification SRO No. 329 dated 23 Sep 60, is charged with :- First charge Committing a civil offence that is to say Army Act abetment, contrary to section 109 of the Indian Section 69. Penal Code, in that he at field between 20 June 71 and 13 Oct 72, while as Canteen Officer 1642 PNR COY, abetted the commission of the offence of dishonest misappropriation punishable under the 1PC sec. 403, of the said unit canteen stores valued at Rs. 9387.92 (Rupees nine thousand three hundred eighty seven and paise ninety two only), which was committed by No. G/1195 86 Pioneer VN Menon, of his unit, in consequence of the said abetment. Second charge An act prejudicial to good order and Army Act, discipline, Section 63. in that he, at field, while commanding 1642 PNR COY (QREF) and being the canteen officer of the said unit canteen, between 18 Aug 71 and 13 Oct 72, improperly and unauthorisedly permitted G/119536 PNR V N Menon of his unit to sell 60 bottles of rum from his canteen to certain personnel at rates higher than the actual retail selling price. Third charge An act prejudicial to good order and Army Act, discipline, Section 63 in that he, at field, while commanding 1642 PNR COY and living with his family between 18 Aug 71 and 13 Oct 72, impro­perly employed at his residence for private purposes the following personal of his unit, for the period shown against each : (a) G/136508 PNR C K Purshotman : Apr 72 to Oct 72. (b) G/131851 PNR Bhim Singh: Apr 72 to Sep 72. (c) G/88148 PNR N Bhaskaran : Jun 72 to Jul 72. (d) G/7911 Cook Bhaktawar Singh : Jul 72 to Oct 72. (e) G/60688 Cook Ali Raza: May 72 to Jul 72. Sd/- ( S. Ramachandran ) Place : Field SE, Commander Date : 4 Aug. 1973. 15 BRTE ( GREF) To be tried by a General Court Martial Sd/- (A K Saroj) HQ CE (P) SEWAK Major Date : 05 Aug. 73. SO 2 (PERS) for Offg. (e) G/60688 Cook Ali Raza: May 72 to Jul 72. Sd/- ( S. Ramachandran ) Place : Field SE, Commander Date : 4 Aug. 1973. 15 BRTE ( GREF) To be tried by a General Court Martial Sd/- (A K Saroj) HQ CE (P) SEWAK Major Date : 05 Aug. 73. SO 2 (PERS) for Offg. Chief Engineer Project Sewak. 6. The GCM found the petitioner guilty of the first and third charges and sentenced him under section 4 d) of the Army Act. . As many as 26 persons were examined and the petitioner was given all the reasonable opportunity to cross-examine them. ( cross-examination of some of the witnesses was declined by the petitioner) Not only that, the GCM »as presided over by Major Het Singh, who conducted the proceedings very deftly. We find no material to substantiate the grievance of the petitioner that the findings were based on the uncorroborated testimony of V. N. Menon. It is no doubt true that Menon was one of the most material witnesses. On the broad canvass of evidence before it, the GCM was justified in arriving at the conclusion. 7. The petitioner contends that he was denied the right of engaging a defending officer of his choice before the GCM. It was submitted by the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel that the petiti­oner was intimated that C O. II, V. K. Bhargava of 25 BRTF would be detailed as defending officer if agreed by the petitioner and was asked about the desire of the petitioner if he wanted to engage a counsel under the provisions of Army Rules 96 and 97. According to the respondents, C. O. II Bhargava had sufficient knowledge of law and experience of GCM and he was considered to be the fittest person to be the defending officer. The petitioner was also informed that he was at liberty to engage a civil lawyer if he so desired. But the petitioner informed in writing that he did not want to engage a civil lawyer. The petitioner requested to detail Lt. Col. M L. Sachdev for his defence, but the respondents contended that this request could not be acceded to as he could not be spared due to the exigencies of service. But the petitioner informed in writing that he did not want to engage a civil lawyer. The petitioner requested to detail Lt. Col. M L. Sachdev for his defence, but the respondents contended that this request could not be acceded to as he could not be spared due to the exigencies of service. Similarly, the petitioner's request to detail Major A. Mathew could not be acceded to as Major Mathew was under orders of transfer and was not willing to act as the defending officer of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the respondents thought it proper to detail C. O. II Bhargava in the best interest of the petitioner and the petitioner finally accepted him as defence officer and he did not raise any objection before the GCM about the detailment of Sri Bhargava as defending officer. We do not find anything that Sri Bhargava was biased against the petitioner in any way or that he did not serve the interest of the petitioner before the GCM. So, we do not find any force in this contention of the petitioner. 8. As to the third ground that the petitioner was always kept away from his Unit HQ whereas the other accused, namely, Sri Menon was allowed to remain in the HQ, we find that this has in no way influenced the proceedings before the GCM. From the records before us, it transpires that in a separate GCM Sri Menon was also convicted and sentenced. There is nothing to show from the record or nothing has been shown by the petitioner that Sri Menon was retained at the HQ under duress only to set him up against the petitioner. 9. As regards the fourth ground, Sri A, Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vigorously urged before us that the petitioner was tried by the GCM under the provisions of the Army Act, which resulted in his conviction and sentence. But deviating from adopting the Army Rules in the disciplinary proceeding, the respondents applied the CCS (CCA) Rules to remove him from service there by subjecting the petitioner to two different sets of proceedings which, according to him, were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But deviating from adopting the Army Rules in the disciplinary proceeding, the respondents applied the CCS (CCA) Rules to remove him from service there by subjecting the petitioner to two different sets of proceedings which, according to him, were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has not been able to carry us with him on this point as we find that the civilian officers belonging to the GREF are treated as persons belonging to the Armed Forces of India and in that view of the matter they are subjected to Army Rules and at the same time, as civilian officers, for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings, the CCS (CCA) Rules may also be applied. We are fortified in this regard by the Supreme Court decision in R. Viswan vs. Union of India & ors. (1983) 3 SCC 401 in which the judgment was rendered by Bhagwati, J. (is his Lordship then was). His Lordship speaking for the Court observed that where two procedures were available for proceeding against delinquent officer-Army Act and Army Rules as well as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 made applicable to personnel of GREF-the authority had the discretion to proceed under the Army Act and the Rules in case of violation of order and discipline. These two procedures were not overlapping and so were not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said Supreme Court decision has a direct bearing in the case in hand and so we refrain from dis­cussing the various provisions of the Army Act and Rules and the CCS(CCA) Rules for sake of avoiding repetition. We, therefore, reject this contention. 10. Lastly, Sri Sarma contended that even after the petitioner served out the sentence, he was allowed by the respondents to resume his duties with all the status and powers that he had prior to the GCM and continued to work as such for about 4 years. So, the order of dismissal in the disciplinary proceeding under the CCS (CCA) Rubs was tantamount to double punishment for the same offence and violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. We are unable to agree to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Dismissal from service may I e a logical corollary of a criminal trial where a Government personnel is convicted and sentenced. We are unable to agree to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Dismissal from service may I e a logical corollary of a criminal trial where a Government personnel is convicted and sentenced. We asked Sri Sarma to cite any authority to show that dismissal of an official from his service consequent upon his conviction and sentence in a criminal case is illegal. Sri Sarma fairly conceded that he could not cite any such authority. Any way Sri Sarma has a point when he submits that even after the conviction and sentence the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties and to exercise his power which he had before he was tried by the GCM. That being the case we think that the dismissal of the petitioner from his service was an extreme step taken by the respondents. Justice would have been met if one of other major penalties envisaged in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules would have been inflicted. Persons serving in the Army or in the allied services are required to maintain strict discipline and exemplary integrity. The foremost duty of the Army is to defend the motherland from foreign aggression and a force that is undisciplined and lacks integrity can never be a match to the enemy. It is under such considerations that an army personnel if found corrupt and undisciplined is punished with severity to deter others from committing various crimes and misconduct and dereliction of duty. But punishment may also be reformative. Can we not then make a reformative approach to the case in hand? The petitioner was otherwise found competent and efficient. He continued to serve for about 4 years even after he was sentenced by the GCM and showed the same competency. The petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family. 11. Having considered all the above aspects of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had already made good the loss on account of canteen stores prior to the holding of the GCM, we would hold that justice would be met if, instead of dismissing the petitioner from service, he is punished with reduction in rank and we order accordingly. The petitioner was C. O. II at the relevant time. He would be reduced to the rank immediately below C. O. II from the date of the impugned order of dismissal (8.11.77). The petitioner was C. O. II at the relevant time. He would be reduced to the rank immediately below C. O. II from the date of the impugned order of dismissal (8.11.77). 12 In the result, the petition is allowed as aforesaid.