ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) PRAYING for writ of certiorari to quash the discharge order dated 23. 10. 1990, the petitioner came to this Court. ( 2 ) THE facts alleged in the writ petition are that from time to time, penalties have been imposed on the petitioner while he was serving in Indian Air Force and in view of the said penalties imposed, the present discharge order was passed. It has been alleged that the same suffers from irregularity having amounted to double punishment as also having not been followed prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it has been contended that the offences for which penalty is imposed before promotion are to be treated as washed out and could not be a ground of discharge. Reference has been made to the details of the punishment as disclosed in the writ petition for showing that the offence alleged therein were not major misconduct. ( 3 ) THE respondents filed counter-affidavit and contended that the impugned order was passed under a policy as contained in the letter dated 14. 8. 1984 and a copy thereof was made available at the time of hearing. It is stated that in terms of the said policy, the petitioner was given due warning and after such warning, when fresh offence had been committed which resulted in further punishment and in strict compliance of the policy the discharge order was passed for the purpose of maintaining discipline in the department. As regards challenge to such power the contentions made by the petitioner have been denied by the respondents. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) IN support of the contentions of the petitioner, his learned counsel further referred to the facts stated in the writ petition as also the materials available from the counter-affidavit and in support of such contention, reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Dry Mohon Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 , holding that in relation to compulsory retirement, public interest means retention of honest and efficient employees and weeding out of inefficient and dishonest. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that the contentions of the petitioner are not acceptable and in this connection, the law has been referred to as decided in the case of Union of india v. Corporal A. K. Bakshi and another. JT 1996 (3) SC 310, wherein aforesaid policy of 1984 has been considered in detail by the Apex Court and it was held that the termination of service on the basis of said policy for discharge constitutes discharge under Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii ). It has been held in the said case that the basic idea underlying the policy for discharge is that recurring nature of punishments for misconduct imposed on an airman renders him unsuitable for further retention in the Air Force. Discharge order in the said case was upheld on such detailed consideration. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid contentions of the respective parties, I find that. In fact, the present case is not a case of weeding out of an inefficient and dead-wood as present discharge order is in terms of the policy for maintaining discipline in the Air Force department. The provision of the said policy has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Corporal A. K. Bakshi and another (supra) and the order of discharge has been upheld there. Therefore, the present discharge order on the ground of penalty earlier imposed on the petitioner, does not suffer from any irregularity. ( 8 ) CONTENTION has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the offences for which penalty had been imposed on the petitioner, were at the initial stage of his employment and. therefore, applying such policy, the petitioner could not be discharged. A perusal of the record shows that the penalties imposed were spread over the period between 1969 and 1979 and thereafter, policy came and warning has been issued and even thereafter, the allegations were there for the period between December, 1988 and June, 1989 and for the same, the petitioner had been punished. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner does not apply in the present facts when admittedly the penalty had been imposed for various offences practically for the entire period of petitioners service. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner does not apply in the present facts when admittedly the penalty had been imposed for various offences practically for the entire period of petitioners service. The employment of the petitioner being in disciplined force and the said policy being in the interest of maintaining discipline and for ousting habitual offenders, no interference is required on this writ petition by this Court and, therefore, the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .