K. Ramamoorthy,j. ( 1 ) THE writ petitionerwas removed from service by orderdated the 8th of July, 1994. The order reads as under: "1. WHEREAS, a Show Cause Notice No. Air HQ/21641/16068/poi (F)dated 12 Feb. 93 was served on Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F (P)requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removedfrom the service under Section 19, Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule17, Air Force Rules, 1969 for avoiding flying duties and showing lackof confidence in flying. 2. ANDWHEREAS,thesaidsqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068)F (P),submitteda reply to the said Show Cause Notice bearing reference No. 325/16068/pf/12 dated 16 Apr. , 93 urging therein his reasons against theproposed action. 3. AND WHEREAS, his reply to the said Show Cause Notice has notbeen found satisfactory. 4. NOW THEREFORE, the Central Government after considering thereply of Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F (P) to the said Show Causenotice and the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff, inexercise of the powers conferred by Section 19, Air Force Act, 1950and Rule 17, Air Force Rules, 1969, orders the removal from theservice of Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F (P ). " ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged this order. On the 12th of February, 1996, thegovernment of India issued a show-cause notice, which reads as under: "1. WHEREAS, you were commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 1 5/06/1980;2. AND WHEREAS, you were removed from service on the ground ofavoiding flying duties and showing lack of confidence in flying,under Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 17 of theair Force Rules, 1969 by the Central Government vide Governmentof India, Ministry of Defence letter No. Air HQ/21901 /16068/po3 (F)/924/us/d (Air-m)/94 dated 8 July, 94 and struck off strengthof the Air Force with effect from 27 July, 94;3. AND WHEREAS ,in view of your removal from theservice,thegrantof retiring gratuity to you is at the discretion of the President underthe provisions of Regulation 24 of Pension Regulations for the Airforce, Part-1 (1961);4. AND WHEREAS, having regard to the circumstances leading toyour removal from the service, the President of India proposes toforfeit entire retiring gratuity otherwise admissible to you underprovisions of Regulation 24 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force,part 1 (1961 ). 5. NOW THERE FORE. AND WHEREAS, having regard to the circumstances leading toyour removal from the service, the President of India proposes toforfeit entire retiring gratuity otherwise admissible to you underprovisions of Regulation 24 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force,part 1 (1961 ). 5. NOW THERE FORE. in accordance with Regulation 24of the Pensionregulations for the Air Force (Part-1), the President of India hasdirected to issue this show cause notice calling upon you to submitin writing your explanation in defence containing any reasons andspecial circumstances, as to why entire retiring gratuity should notbe forfeited. Your explanation in defence is to be submitted to theundersigned within a period of 30 days of the receipt of this noticeby you, failing which it shall be presumed that you have no explanationor reasons to urge against the proposed action, and action will betaken accordingly. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an explanation by his letter dated the 11th of March, 1996in the following terms: "1. In reference to letter No. Air/hq. /7211/ppandr/ P-3/242/a/d (Pen/sers) dated 12/02/1996,1 have to submit following fewlines for your kind and sympathetic consideration with regard torelease of my retiring gratuity as envisaged under Reg. 24 of Pensionregulation for the Air Force Part-1 (1961 ). 2. It was sometime in 1988 that I was under tremendous pressure frommy family to quit flying which I overcome in 1992 and then I was fitto fly. I requested through an application dated 29 July, 92 addressedto ACC 32 Mg AF my willingness to fly, however no heed was paidand subsequently I was removed from the Air Force. 3. During non-flying tenure I performed my duties to the best satisfactionof my superiors which can be verified from Annual Confidentialreports raised on me. It goes to show that I was not fit to fly due somefamily problems but I was mentally fit to perform all other jobs whichaf entrusted and assigned me from time to time. 4. In earnest truthfulness I did not want to be a flying hazard when I wasnot mentally fit to fly but undertook all my jobs with utmost sincerityand honesty. 5. At this juncture when I am no more with Indian Air Force I have noother place to turn to as I do not possess any academic qualificationworth mentioning since I joined I. A. F. through N. D. A. after passingindian School Certificate. 6. 5. At this juncture when I am no more with Indian Air Force I have noother place to turn to as I do not possess any academic qualificationworth mentioning since I joined I. A. F. through N. D. A. after passingindian School Certificate. 6. I have a family consisting of wife, two small children and dependentwidowed mother. With a stigma of removal from service, I cannot belook beyond a job of Security Guard at the most in a privateorganisation. 7. I, therefore, most humbly request your Excellency to grant meretiring gratuity which will be a big solace and I will be able to feedmy family. " ( 4 ) ON the 26th of August, 1997, the petitioner had filed the writ petitionclaiming the following reliefs: "it is humbly prayed that the Hon ble Court may be pleased: (i) To allow this petition. (ii) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the letter of therespondent dated 12/2/96 (Annex c1 ), order payment of leaveencashment and retiring gratuity as admissible and payment ofappropriate interest on the sum due from 27. 7. 94 till the date ofpayment. " ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of India passedan order on the 17th of February, 1998 granting 75% pensionary benefits to thepetitioner. The order reads as under: "i am directed to refer to the explanation dated 11. 3. 96 in responseto this Ministry s Memorandum No. Air HQ/24268/7211 /ppandr-3/242/a/d (Pen/sers),dated 12/02/1996andhavingregard tothe circumstances of the case leading to the removal of the officerfrom service, the President is pleased to decide to sanction 75% ofpensionary benefits to Sqn. Ldr. Anil Gupta (16068) F (P) to which hewould have been entitled to had he retired in the normal manner onthe date of removal. 2. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division of the Ministryvide their UO No. 204/pen/98, dated 21. 2. 1998. " ( 6 ) THE other benefits - retiral gratuity and leave encashment - have not beengranted to the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. K. Aggarwal, submits that thetermination of the services of the petitioner had been an administrative action undersection 19oftheairforceact, 1950,and therefore, the petitioner cannot be deniedthe leave encashment and retiral gratuity. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents, Ms. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. K. Aggarwal, submits that thetermination of the services of the petitioner had been an administrative action undersection 19oftheairforceact, 1950,and therefore, the petitioner cannot be deniedthe leave encashment and retiral gratuity. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Nimi Mehta, that therespondents had acted within the ambit of Rule 17 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 andalso the letter dated the 14th of March, 1994 issued by the Government, which is filedas Annexure R-11. Rule 17 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 reads as under; "removal from service of officers on grounds other than misconduct- (1) When the Chief of the Air Staff is satisfied that an officer is not to beretained in service due to inefficiency, physical disability or otherground other than misconduct of officer: (a) Shall be so informed. (b) Shall be furnished with particulars of all matters adverse to him;and (e) Shall be called upon to submit in writing within a reasonableperiod, any reason he may wish to urge for not being removedfrom the service. Providedfurther that the Chief of the Air Staff may withhold fromdisclosure the particulars of any matter adverse to the officer, or anyportion thereof, if in his opinion, its disclosure is not in the interestsof the security of the State. (2) If no reply is received from the officer within the specified period, orthe reasons submitted by him are considered not satisfactory by thechief of the Air Staff, the matter shall be submitted to the Centralgovernment for Orders together with the explanation of the officer,if any, and the recommendation of the Chief of the Air Staff for theremoval of the officer from the service. (3) The Central Government may, after considering the explanation, ifany, of the officer and the recommendations of the Chief of the Airstaff, and after satisfying itself that the failure, where applicable, todisclose matters adverse to the officer was in the. interests of thesecurity of the State may remove or compulsorily retire the officerfrom the service. " ( 9 ) THE letter issued by the Government of lndia, Annexure-11, readsas under: "i am directed to refer to this Ministry s letter No. 90054/ag / Pand2 (b) / D (AG)dated 20 Aug. interests of thesecurity of the State may remove or compulsorily retire the officerfrom the service. " ( 9 ) THE letter issued by the Government of lndia, Annexure-11, readsas under: "i am directed to refer to this Ministry s letter No. 90054/ag / Pand2 (b) / D (AG)dated 20 Aug. , 90 under which officers JCOs and OR of the Army and theirequivalents in the Navy and Air Force who are compulsorily retired /discharged from service on disciplinary ground s, have been allowed to en cashtheir unutilised Annual Leave accumulated for the purpose of encashment,subject to the ceiling, made of accumulation and conditions provided herein. The President is now pleased to decide that the ceiling on Annual Leaveaccumulated for encashment be enhanced in terms of this Ministry s lettersno. F. 14 (3)/88/d (AG), dated 30/12/1991 and 10/01/1992,subject to the following conditions: (a) The enhancement will be subject to the ceiling and mode ofaccumulation prescribed in the letters dated 30 Dec. , 91 and in Jan. ,92 mentioned above. (b) Such encashment will be allowed only in cases where the Disciplinaryauthority has not imposed any reduction in the amount of pension,including gratuity, as provided in this Ministry s letter No. 90054/ag/ps2 (b)/5348/d (AG), dated 20 Aug. , 90 referred to above. In cases, where any reduction in the amount of pension (including gratuity)has been imposed encashment of leave shall not be permitted. These order shall take effect from 30/12/1991. This letter issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Defence (Financedivision) vide their U. O. No. 124-PA, dated 2. 1994. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. K. Aggarwal, submitted thatin view of the peculiar circumstances in which administrative action was takenagainst the petitioner in terminating his services, the petitioner s case would notcome within the parameter laid down in the letter dated the 14th of March, 1994 and,according to the learned Counsel, Rule 17 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 deals witha different situation. ( 11 ) THE fact that the petitioner has been removed from service is not disputed. After the show-cause notice dated the 12th of February, 1996, die Government ofindia had passed the order on the 17th of February, 1998 considering the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that die letterof the Government of India dated the 14th of March, 1994 would not apply is notacceptable. After the show-cause notice dated the 12th of February, 1996, die Government ofindia had passed the order on the 17th of February, 1998 considering the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that die letterof the Government of India dated the 14th of March, 1994 would not apply is notacceptable. By order dated the 17th of February, 1998, the petitioner is given 75%pension. The petitioner was removed from service on account of his unsuitabilityto the job. Under these circumstances, I am not able to exercise my discretion togrant any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ( 12 ) THERE shall be no orders as to costs.