DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of dismissal passed by the respondents. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy Nursing Assistant in Army Medical Corps on 22. 8. 95. He was granted two months annual leave from 20. 1. 1994 till 24. 3. 94. He overstayed and on 11. 7. 1994, reported to the AMC Centre at Lucknow. It is mentioned in the petition that the petitioner met with a motor- cycle accident on 20. 3. 1994 resulting in severe multiple injuries, including fracture. He was examined by Dr. R. K. Ade and on 8. 7. 94 when the doctors declared him fit to resume duty under some restrictions on 9. 7. 94, he started his journey to join his Unit and on 11. 7. 94. he reported at AMC Centre, Lucknow. The petitioner was court martialled and was dismissed from service. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a statutory complaint under section 164 of the Army Act which was also rejected. In this writ petition, it is mentioned that because of the accident on 20. 3. 1994, the petitioner became unconscious and suffered multiple injuries and sustained a fracture, A passer by picked up the petitioner and took him to the Civil Hospital. After setting of the fractured bones. Dr. R. K. Ade plastered and advised the petitioner two months rest. It is stated in the petition that on 22. 3. 1994, the petitioner s father informed the Commanding Officer, 2121 Field Ambulance about the accident and hospitalisation of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not report on duty after the expiry of his leave. On 11. 7. 1994, when he reported at AMC Centre, at Lucknow, he was still not fully recovered and was admitted to the Base Hospital, Lucknow for further treatment. On 4. 8. 94 the petitioner was discharged from the Base Hospital in a temporarily low medical category (CEE) for six months and advised to wear PI Shoes for his daily duty and to appear before I regular board after six months. ( 3 ) SOON after the Medical Board, the petitioner was hauled up on a charge of desertion. The petitioner was court-martialled and was dismissed from service. ( 3 ) SOON after the Medical Board, the petitioner was hauled up on a charge of desertion. The petitioner was court-martialled and was dismissed from service. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has mentioned that another Sepoy No. 13946933 R. K. Keshiriar remained absent for 945 days (2 years 7 months and 4 days) and that was excused by the respondents. In Annexure-2 the petitioner has also mentioned that No. 13975641 Sepoy clerk B. A. Bashir remained absent for 150 days without any justifying cause. He was awarded only 14 days pay fine on 19. 11. 94, whereas the petitioner could not report on duty because in the accident on 20. 3. 1994 he sustained a fracture and multiple injuries. The petitioner was given treatment from 15. 7. 1994 to 4,8. 1994 in the base hospital at Lucknow. Even then he was court-martialled and dismissed from the service. According to the petitioner the punishment awarded to him in any event is quite disproportionate apart from the fact this is a clear case of discrimination. ( 5 ) THE petitioner submitted that the petitioner, could not have been court martialled under section 38 of the Army Act. In any event his offence could not travel beyond Section 39 (a) or (b ). ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-1, case file No. 190105/2125/25/c/a1, in which it is mentioned that the petitioner was dismissed on following charges; I) Deserting the service ii) Loosing by neglect the property of the Govt. issued to him for his use and in para 3 it is mentioned that loss of property of the Govt. means (his identity card) in a short span of eight and half years service. The learned counsel submitted that small matter has been blown up out of proportion. ( 7 ) THIS court issued a show cause notice and in pursuance of that notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed. The counter-affidavit is silent about the aforesaid two instances of discrimination. The other two sepoys were treated lightly whereas the petitioner was I dismissed from the service. ( 8 ) THE counter-affidavit is also silent on the aspect what at the lime when the petitioner had left on annul leave where was he posted and what was the nature of work entrusted to him. The matter has been adjourned from time to time. ( 8 ) THE counter-affidavit is also silent on the aspect what at the lime when the petitioner had left on annul leave where was he posted and what was the nature of work entrusted to him. The matter has been adjourned from time to time. but no satisfactory reply is forthcoming from the respondent/ Union of India. ( 9 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In these facts and circumstances, as a special case. I direct the respondent, the Chief of the Army Staff to direct a senior official to look into the entire matter of the petitioner de novo and decide the case by a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt of this order. While deciding the case of the petitioner, the respondents should also take into consideration the ground of discrimination which the petitioner has specifically pleaded. ( 10 ) NO further orders are necessary The writ petitioner is accordingly disposed of, ( 11 ) LIBERTY is granted to the petitioner to have the petition revived in case he is still aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents.