S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition by the discharged personnel of the Indian Air Force. In this writ Petition, the petitioner assails the validity of the action of the respondents in discharging him from service prematurely with effect from 10-11-1998. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined Indian Air Force on 6-12-1979. As per the terms and conditions governing the appointment of the petitioner, in normal course, he was entitled to be continued in service for a period of twenty years, that is, up to 5-12-1999. However, Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) of the a. F. Rules, 1969 enables the administration of the Air Force to discharge an Airman prematurely, that is to say, even before completion of twenty years period, if such airman is punished by the administration of Air Force five times or more, treating such Airman as a habitual offender. In the instant Writ Petition, there is no controversy between the parties that the petitioner was punished five time and he was treated as a habitual offender. When the matter stood thus, the present Writ Petition was filed on 29-10-1998, and this Court while issuing rule Nisi on 30-10-1998, granted interim direction in W. P. M. P. 36817 of 1998 directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the residential quarter (official quarter allotted to the petitioner when he was Airman in the Air Force), and by virtue of the said interim order, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the parties, that the petitioner is still in occupation and enjoyment of the official quarter. ( 3 ) ASSAILING the impugned action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner prematurely with effect from 10-11-1998 from Air Force, the only contention of Sri v. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the fourth respondent wrongly treated the absence of the petitioner during certain spells, during his service, as unauthorised absence tantamounting to misconduct under the conduct Regulations governing Airmen and, therefore, the impugned action is vitiated. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Should it be noted that if the action of the fourth respondent in treating the absence of the petitioner during certain spells, during his service, as unauthorised absence tantamounting to misconduct, the petitioner should have assailed those disciplinary actions of the fourth respondent in appropriate legal proceedings. Should it be noted that if the action of the fourth respondent in treating the absence of the petitioner during certain spells, during his service, as unauthorised absence tantamounting to misconduct, the petitioner should have assailed those disciplinary actions of the fourth respondent in appropriate legal proceedings. The petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the fourth respondent collaterally in this writ petition where only the validity of the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner prematurely with effect from 10-11-1998, is assailed. It is also relevant to note that even in this writ petition no relief is sought against the disciplinary action earlier taken by the fourth respondent treating conduct of the petitioner as misconduct. Therefore, for all practicable purposes, it should be held that the petitioner was punished five times and, therefore, that enables the administration of Air Force to invoke the powers vested in it under Rule 15 (2) (g) (ii) of the A. F. Rules, 1969. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken in the impugned order. No other ground is urged or canvassed before the Court at the time of final hearing except the above ground in assailing the impugned action. The Writ petition is devoid of merit. ( 4 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) payable by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of three weeks from to-day.