JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—In this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought the quashing of an order passed on July 29, 1986, by Summary Court Martial (In brief SCM) sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months and ordering his dismissal from service and subsequent order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing his petition on March 23, 1987 (Annexure PD) and order Annexure PF dated October 27, 1988 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing his petition. 2. Petitioner, a member of the Indian Armed Forces, was a Gunner in 200 Field Regiment, which was attached with 5 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad. He was granted annual leave from June 23, 1983 to July 22, 1983. On expiry of leave, he failed to rejoin the unit and thereby overstayed the leave from July 23, 1983 to May 99 1986. During the period of absence, petitioner neither informed his Unit about his whereabouts nor disclosed the reasons of his over-stay As a consequence thereto, he was declared a deserter on and with effect from July 23, 1983 by a Court of inquiry on August 22, 1983 and apprehension roll was accordingly issued to the police authorities by his regiment, in pursuance to which he was apprehended by civil police from his naive village in tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, on May 9, 1986. Since the act of overstay, while on leave, was an offence punishable under clause (b) of section 39 of Army Act, 1930 (Act No. 46 of 1950) (hereinafter to be called as the Act), Commanding Officer of his Regiment charged him of having overstayed his leave without sufficient cause and convened a SCM. On conclusion of the proceedings of SCM he was found guilty of the charge and was accordingly convicted with the aforementioned punishments. 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner presented a petition under section 164 of the Act to respondent No. 2. Since the said petition was not disposed of by the said respondent, petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 26 of 1986. In the petition presented before respondent No. 2 as well as in the Criminal Writ Petition filed in this Court, petitioner narrated circumstances, which, according to him, prevented him to join his duty due to which he overstayed the leave period. 4. In the petition presented before respondent No. 2 as well as in the Criminal Writ Petition filed in this Court, petitioner narrated circumstances, which, according to him, prevented him to join his duty due to which he overstayed the leave period. 4. The grounds submitted were that while on leave at his home village, be went to forest to fetch fuel wood. While cutting one of the branches of the trees, he fell from a height of about 3000 fit which resulted in the fracture of his back-bone and he also received head injury. In an unconscious condition he was admitted in the Indira Gandhi Medical College Hospital, Shimla, where he remained under treatment for one year. Though he was not fully cured but was discharged from the hospital and thereafter he got treatment from a private doctor and regained his memory. The petitioner, due to his illness and unconscious condition, remained under the impression that he was still on two months leave and had yet to rejoin duties. A letter was stated to have been posted to the Commanding Officer informing him of the incident but that was not responsed. Pradhan of Gram Panchayat of the petitioner is also stated to have written a letter to the Officer Incharge Records, Nasik, explaining the reasons of the petitioner in not joinining the duties but no reply was received. Petitioner was still planning to joint the duty, after availing leave, when according to him he was apprehended and charge-sheeted later on and punished as aforementioned. 5. Considering the averments made in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Court on December 6, 1984, passed the following order :— "At the request of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, the case is adjourned to March 10, 1987. Meanwhile, the petitioners case will be examined by the competent authority on the basis of the entire material which has now been brought on the record of the case and just relief, if any, admissible in accordance with law will be granted to him. The affidavit-in-reply will be filed on or before March 3, 1987 and such will incorporate the fresh decision, if any, arrived at on the basis of the above directions. The affidavit-in-reply will be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay." 6. The affidavit-in-reply will be filed on or before March 3, 1987 and such will incorporate the fresh decision, if any, arrived at on the basis of the above directions. The affidavit-in-reply will be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay." 6. Respondent No. 2 as per directions of the Court considered the petition filed under section 164 of the Act. The reasons assigned of being absent due to brain injury and hospitalisation in several hospitals was found to be not tenable since the same was held not supported by facts of the case. The petition was found lacking in substance and conviction passed by a duly constituted Court Martial to be just and adequate. Accordingly, the petition was rejected on March 23, 1987 vide order Annexure PD. In view of the rejection of the same, petitioner sought permission to withdraw Criminal Writ Petition No 26 of 1986 with liberty reserved to file a fresh one. Permission was accorded and the petition was rejected. Petitioner thereafter represented his case before respondent No. 1, which was also rejected vide order dated October 29f 1988 (Annexure PF). The order of SCM and orders Annexures PD and PF had been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. The grounds which have been pressed for quashing the impugned orders are that petitioner has for the same offence been jeopardised twice, namely, imprisonment for six months and dismissal from service, which has also resulted in grave penal and civil consequences and is against the statutory provisions and further that the SCM did not follow the proper procedure. Charges framed against him were not proved and adequate opportunity was not afforded to him to explain the circumstances appearing against him. 8. The petition has been con tasted by the respondents by filing reply on the affidavit of Col. S. B. Mathur, Administrative Commandant, Station Headquarters, Shimla, wherein it has been contended that petitioner, after availing annual leave overstayed without sufficient cause and no information of the same was sent to the Unit. Respondents have specifically denied the alleged reasons stated by the petitioner for his overstay and also denied the fact that the petitioner or the Pradhan Gram Panchayat ever informed the Unit. Respondents have specifically denied the alleged reasons stated by the petitioner for his overstay and also denied the fact that the petitioner or the Pradhan Gram Panchayat ever informed the Unit. It has further been averred that after the petitioner was declared a deserter, apprehension roll was issued in pursuance to which he was arrested by civil police and thereafter he was convicted by SCM in which proper procedure la accordance with law was followed. It has also been contended that punishment is inconformity with the provisions of law. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. At the time of hearing of writ petition, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 made available the proceedings of the SCM to the Court. We have perused the entire record. We find that on July 14, 1986, petitioner was served with a charge of overstaying leave without sufficient cause. While pleading guilty to the charge, the petitioner submitted that he had made a grave mistake and since he remained in custody for 59 days, he prayed that a token punishment be awarded to him. In support of the charges, statements of Lance Hav. Dinesh Gaika, Hav. Chander Singh Rathi, No. Sub. I. P. Singh were recorded. Petitioner was afforded opportunity to cross-examine them but the opportunity was not availed. With the support of the documentary evidence, witnesses stated that petitioner overstayed leave and was thereafter declared a deserter and apprehension roll was issued against him and was ultimately arrested by civil police. Petitioner was afforded opportunity to produce his evidence but he declined to avail the opportunity or to make any statement. Thereafter, the SCM recorded its findings that the petitioner had without sufficient cause overstayed leave granted to him. Before imposing sentence it took into consideration, from the record of the petitioners regiment, the fact that he previously too was convicted by Court Martial on three different occasions for different offences. Once he was convicted for having over stayed leave granted without any sufficient cause, which was an offence under sub-clause (b) of section 39 of the Act. Before imposing sentence it took into consideration, from the record of the petitioners regiment, the fact that he previously too was convicted by Court Martial on three different occasions for different offences. Once he was convicted for having over stayed leave granted without any sufficient cause, which was an offence under sub-clause (b) of section 39 of the Act. On another occasion, he was convicted on having been found guilty of an act prejudicial to the good order of military discipline, which is an offence under section 63 of the Act and on the third occasion for commission of an offence of theft of property belonging to Government, punishable under clause (a) of section 52 of the Act. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, the SCM sentenced the petitioner to suffer R. I. for six months, which was directed to be carried out by confining him in civil prison and ordering his dismissal from service. 10. Having gone through the proceedings of the SCM, we do not find any force in one of the submissions made on behalf of petitioner that adequate opportunity was not afforded to him and that charges were not proved against him. From the proceedings, we also find that the ground of his absence, as now stated by him in this petition, which were stated by him in his representation filed before respondent No 2 had not been taken at the earliest opportunity and the same appears to be an after thought. Respondent No 2 was right while rejecting the representation of the petitioner in the absence of any material in support thereof. 11. The other point which now survives for determination is as to whether the SCM did not have the jurisdiction or power to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service, in addition to the punishment of imprisonment. 12. Chapter VI of the Act deals with the various offencees punishable under the Act, which are enumerated in sections 34 to 68 of the Act, as also the punishment that may be inflicted on conviction of various offences. The petitioner was tried for an offence under clause (b) of section 39 of the Act. The maximum punishment imposable is imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years. Chapter VII of the Act deals with various punishments. The petitioner was tried for an offence under clause (b) of section 39 of the Act. The maximum punishment imposable is imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years. Chapter VII of the Act deals with various punishments. Sub-clauses (a) to (I) of section 71 specific the various punishments which may be inflicted in respect of the offence committed by persons subject to the Act and convicted by Court Martial. Section 72 empowers a Court Martial to either award the particular punishment with which the offence is stated or in lieu thereof any one of the punishments lower in the scale set out in section 71, regard being had to the nature and degree of the offence. Section 73 of the Act provides for the combination of punishments and says : "A sentence of a court-martial may award in addition to or without any one other punishment, the punishment specified in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 71 and any one or more of the punishments specified in clauses (f) to (1) of that section." 13. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under section 73 of the Act, petitioner could not have been awarded two punishments, one that of imprisonment under section 39 of the Act and the other of dismissal from service under clause (e) of section 71 of the Act. On a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision of law, we find no force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Section 73 of the Act empowers the Court Martial to inflict, in addition to the punishment specified for various offence under sections 34 to 68 of the Act, the punishments specified in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 71 of the Act and also any one or more of the punishments specified in clauses (f) to (I) of the said section. It also empowers a Court Martial to inflict the punishment specified in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 71 together with any one or more of the punishments specified in clauses (f) to (1) of that section even if the punishments provided in sections 34 to 68 are not inflicted. While taking this view, we are supported by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in The District Magistrate Meerut and another v. Jagdish Saran Rastogi AIR 1976 All 404. 14. While taking this view, we are supported by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in The District Magistrate Meerut and another v. Jagdish Saran Rastogi AIR 1976 All 404. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also made a challenge to the order of dismissal as being disproportionate to the charge Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Court Martial also found the petitioner to have previously been punished on three different occasions for different offences, we do not consider that the challenge is well founded. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in Vidya Prakash v. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 705, held that in such type of oases when the delinquent had on previous occasion been punished for similar offence, the order of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge. The relevant observations of the Court are as under :— "Chapter 6 of the Army Act specifies the offences and also the punishments for such offences. Section 39 (a) specifies that to be absent without leave constitutes an offence and section 71 (e) of the said Act provides dismissal from service as one of the punishments for such an offence. The appellant undoubtedly absented himself from duty without taking any leave from the lines as required under the Army Act. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the said offence and he was tried by a summary Court-martial convened by the Commanding Officer and after giving him due opportunity it was held that the appellant was previously punished also for the offence of absence from duty on four occasions and there was a red ink entry. Considering all this in the summary court-martial proceedings he was convicted and sentenced to the punishment of dismissal from service. The submission that the punishment is disproportionate to charge is wholly unsustainable The summary court-martial constituted by Major P. S, Mahant after considering the evidence has found the appellant guilty of the alleged charge and awarded the said punishment in accordance with the provisions of the Army Act. as such, the said order of dismissal cannot be challenged as disproportionate to the charge or as one tainted with illegality.” No other point was urged before us. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. as such, the said order of dismissal cannot be challenged as disproportionate to the charge or as one tainted with illegality.” No other point was urged before us. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.