JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd September, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2284/1994. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant was serving in the Army as "Sepoy" and during his service he earned four red ink entries. The details of the appellant's misconduct are as follows: (i) In September, 1983, the appellant left the unit lines without leave and remained absent for 38 days. As a consequence of this misconduct, he was marched upto the Commanding Officer and awarded 28 days' rigorous imprisonment and 14 days' detention in military custody under the provisions of Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950; (ii) In June, 1986, the appellant over-stayed leave by 32 days and was awarded 28 days rigorous imprisonment in military custody under Section 39(b) of the Army Act, 1950; (iii) In the year 1990, when the appellant was serving In a high altitude area, he sought leave. While the Company Commander required him to wait for a day for personnel of the company, who were on leave, to return, the appellant violated the orders and even threatened him, for which the appellant was marched up to the Company Commander for insubordination under Section 63 of Army Act, 1950 and was deprived of the appointment of Lance Naik; (iv) In the year 1992, the appellant over-stayed leave by four days. While explaining the cause for overstaying leave, he stated before authorities that for 3 days, there was no train service. This explanation was found to be false as the other members of Unit had arrived from Oeslar Railway Station on the dates mentioned by the appellant. The Unit also received a communication from the Railway Authorities to the effect that train services on the dates in question "though disrupted, had not ceased". The appellant even produced a false and fabricated slip before the superior Officer, purported to have been issued by the Railways to create an impression that there s were no rail services on particular days, when he was absent without leave. The Railways confirmed that no such slip was issued by them. 3. On the appellant getting four red ink entries, the respondents issued a notice to him on 12,6.93. The Railways confirmed that no such slip was issued by them. 3. On the appellant getting four red ink entries, the respondents issued a notice to him on 12,6.93. By virtue of this notice, the appellant was required to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service. Subsequently, that notice was withdrawn after the appellant filed a representation thereto. Again after a lapse of a few months, on 2.11.93, a fresh notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why he be not discharged from service in view of four red ink entries, specified in the notice itself. In the notice it was also stated that in case no reply was received from the appellant by 15th December, 1993, it was to be assumed that appellant had nothing to say in the matter. In response to the notice the appellant submitted his reply. Thereafter the appellant was discharged from service vide order of the Commanding Officer dated 5.2.94, the order of discharge reads as under: "BY HAND Ahaudah Grenadiers 14, Grenadiers, C/o 56 APO 5 Feb. 1994 2675021/Local Disch/A No. 2675021F Gdr Sampat Singh Ent Ward No. 13 Comd. Hoap (Southern Comd) Pune. LOCALLY DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE 1. You are hereby informed that you have been discharged from service locally with effect from 5 Feb. 94 (AN) and finally struck off strength with effect from 6 Feb. 94 (FN). Your discharge has been sanctioned by the competent authority vide Army Rule 13(3) Ill (V) on being found unsuitable for red ink entries. 2. Your final settlement of accounts will be done by PAO (OR) The GRENADIERS, Jabalpur (MP) and amount of account of your credit balance, AFPP Fund etc. will be remitted to you at your home address by the Record Office. (UK Rao) Co. Local Commanding Officer." 4. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order of discharge passed by the Commanding Officer, filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had suffered four red ink entries and, therefore, the respondents were justified in dispensing with his services. Not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had suffered four red ink entries and, therefore, the respondents were justified in dispensing with his services. Not satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that earlier notice dated 12.6.93 which was also based on the aforesaid four red ink entries, was revoked by the respondents on 19.6.93 and, therefore, on the same cause of action, the respondents were debarred from issuing a second show cause notice dated 2.11.93. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that order of discharge passed by respondents was violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first show cause notice dated 12.6.93 was withdrawn on technical grounds. It was also pointed out that after the issuance of the second show cause notice, the appellant threatened to take revenge from the Officers. He also became aggressive and arrogant and kept threatening the Junior Commanding Officer. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of discharge is not violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the appellant earned four red ink entries. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has been discharged from service on the ground of his unsuitability, which fact is reflected from four red ink entries earned by him. It is needless to point out that in the Army discipline is of paramount importance. No in-disciplined soldier can be tolerated in the disciplined force. Army is entitled to curb insubordination and indiscipline of its men, otherwise it will affect its capability to defend the country. 9. The earlier notice which was issued to the appellant was withdrawn on the ground that the same suffered from a technical defect. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that subsequent notice is an exact copy of as the first notice. We find that there is a difference between the two notices. 9. The earlier notice which was issued to the appellant was withdrawn on the ground that the same suffered from a technical defect. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that subsequent notice is an exact copy of as the first notice. We find that there is a difference between the two notices. The following lines which exist in the second notice were not incorporated in the first notice:- "In case no reply is received to the notice from the appellant by 15.12.1993, it shall be presumed that appellant had nothing to say in the matter." 10. It was always open to the respondents to revoke the first notice and to issue fresh notice in a proper manner so as to prevent a possible challenge to the same on technical grounds. We find from the reply that even after receipt of the second notice, the appellant behaved in a insubordinate manner with his officers. He threatened the officers and became aggressive and arrogant. in the circumstances, respondents were entitled to discharge the appellant from service. The action of discharge is not by way of punishment for the misconduct for which he was already punished. We do not find anything wrong with the discharge of a person who is not suitable for further retention. It is always open to the respondents to consider punishments that have been imposed earlier on a person, to be a part of his service record and to decide whether the person is suitable for being retained in the Army. According to the Army Rules, 1954 the Brigade or Sub-Area Commander can issue an order of discharge of a person, if the circumstances of the case permit, after giving him a show cause notice. 11. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed - Order of Single Judge Upheld. *******