GITA MITTAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 20th february, 1999 whereby the petitioner was removed from service with the Defence security Corps (hereinafter referred to as "he dsc" ). The petitioner is also claiming his pensionary benefits, gratuity and other benefits and compensation for illegal termination of service and cost of the present proceedings. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition, which are necessary for the purposes of deciding the present petition, are set out hereafter. The petitioner joined the Indian Air force as a Sepoy on the 26th February, 1984. It is claimed that he was enrolled with the Defence Security Corps on 22nd february, 1984 which duty and enrolment he claims to have discharged satisfactorily for a period of ten years and his appointment with the D. S. C. was extended for a further period of five years from 27th February, 1994 to 26th February, 1999. Though he overstayed his leave on four prior occasion for reasons beyond his control, it is claimed that upon joining duty, the petitioner was permitted to join but subject to punishment for overstaying his leave. The petitioner further contends that he served his unit till the 31st march, 1999 yet was shown as discharged from service with effect from 20th February, 1999. The petitioner contends that he has been deprived of his retrial benefits as he is being treated as having been discharged from service after serving the Air Force for fourteen years eleven months and twenty eight days. Despite representations to the O. I. C. Records for grant of this pension and other benefits, the petitioner has received nothing. His notice to the respondents in this behalf dated november, 2000 has also not elicited in response let alone any favorable action on the part of the respondents. The petitioner had earlier filed the writ being writ no. 3720/2001 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action on 17th July, 2001. Hence the present writ petition. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, the respondents contend that the petitioner had initially served with the Army Medical Corps from 24th november, 1965 to 30th November, 1982. 3720/2001 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action on 17th July, 2001. Hence the present writ petition. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, the respondents contend that the petitioner had initially served with the Army Medical Corps from 24th november, 1965 to 30th November, 1982. The Petitioner was discharged from his former service on completion of his full term of engagement and was granted service pension with effect from 1st December, 1982 in respect of such service. He is drawing service pension for service with the Army Medical corps. Thereafter the petitioner was enrolled into the D. S. C. on 26th February, 1984 for a period of ten years and his term of engagement was further extended from 22nd february, 1994 till 21st February, 1999. The respondents contend that during his D. S. C. service he was tried on four occasion and awarded punishment on 22nd July, 1984, 21st April, 1992, 29th April, 1993 and 21st september, 1993. On each occasion, it is contended that the petitioner was awarded rigorous imprisonment/detention for overstaying of leave. ( 4 ) THE respondents further contend that extension of service to personnel serving with the Defence Forces is not a matter of right but is granted on the basis of and in accordance with their efficiency and utility to the Corps. The petitioner being a habitual offender and an undisciplined soldier was bad example to other troops. Discipline being a paramount requirement in Army Service, therefore, as per the eligibility conditions laid down for extension of terms of engagement in para 6 (b) of the Record Office Instructions 2/s/89, D. S. C. personnel who have incurred more than three red ink entries are not eligible for extension of terms of engagement. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, the petitioner was about to complete his term of engagement on 21st February, 1999 and, therefore, his willingness for further extension of service was initiated by his unit concerned through the departmental channel. On examination of the case by the D. S. C. Record office, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of further extension of service due to four red ink entries in the current spell of D. S. C. Service. Therefore in accordance with Army Headquarters letter no. On examination of the case by the D. S. C. Record office, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of further extension of service due to four red ink entries in the current spell of D. S. C. Service. Therefore in accordance with Army Headquarters letter no. A/00585/d. S. C. /1 dated 9th September, 1998, retention of the personnel having four or more red ink entries is not considered desirable from the disciplinary point of view. For these reasons, further extension of service in respect of the petitioner was not approved and vide letter bated 14th November, 1998, the D. S. C. Records Office issued necessary instructions to 674 D. S. C. Platoon to discharge the petitioner from D. S. C. Service under Army Rule (3) item III (v) being service no longer required . Hence discharge of the petitioner from D. S. C. Service was sanctioned by the competent authority that is the officiating Commander MP Sub Area on 31st january, 1999 and the petitioner was discharged from service on 20th February, 1999. ( 6 ) ON the issue of the petitioner s eligibility and entitlement to pension, the respondents contend that the petitioner does not have the requisite minimum service of fifteen years to become eligible for service pension. It is contended that the petitioner has rendered only 14 years 6 months and 12 days of qualifying service. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties it would be useful to examine the rule position applicable to the facts of the instant case. The respondents have placed reliance on the provisions of the record of Office Instructions bearing. No. 2/s/89 to contend that personnel who have incurred more than tree red ink entries are not eligible for extension of terms of engagement. The relevant para of these instructions is as hereunder:- " (B) Discipline (i) Should have less than three red ink entries during entire D. S. C. Service (current spell) (ii) Should have less than two red ink entries during current period of engagement. The relevant para of these instructions is as hereunder:- " (B) Discipline (i) Should have less than three red ink entries during entire D. S. C. Service (current spell) (ii) Should have less than two red ink entries during current period of engagement. (iii) Should not have been convicted during D. S. C. service for any of the following (aa) Moral Turpitude (bb) Indecent and un-natural offences (cc) Theft (dd) Misappropriation/financial mishandling (ee) Mutiny" ( 8 ) ACCORDING to para 6 (b) of the Record of instructions2/s/89, the applicant should have less than three red ink entries during the entire D. S. C. Service and should have less than two red ink entries during the current period of engagement. ( 9 ) THE respondent have also relied upon the Army. Headquarter letter no. A/00585/ dsc 1 dated 9th September, 1998, the relevant extract whereby reads as hereunder:- "4. Persons having four or more Red ink entries. From the perusal of the list forwarded vide your letter no. Doc coord/2156/59 dated 25th July, 1998, it is observed that quite a large number of pers amongst them have incurred five to eight red ink entries. Their continued retention in service is not considered desirable from discipline point of view. You are, therefore, requested to ask the concerned unit to take necessary action to discharge personnel having four or more red/ink entries incurred after grant of the last extension after following the due procedure. Such cases will not be granted extension under any circumstances. Special attention may be paid for the following offences: - a) Intoxication b) Assault and affray c) Desertion of guard posts d) Theft e) Damage to Govt property and such other serious offences. As per these instructions personnel having incurred five to eight red ink entries were considered undesirable for retention. " ( 10 ) THEREFORE instructions were issued and units were directed to take action to discharge personnel having four or more red ink entries incurred after grant of the last extension after following the due procedure. ( 11 ) WE have given our considered attention to the contentions made on behalf of both parties. The respondents have produced the original records relating to the petitioner which has been perused by us. ( 11 ) WE have given our considered attention to the contentions made on behalf of both parties. The respondents have produced the original records relating to the petitioner which has been perused by us. We have also carefully examined the rule position and the instructions relied upon by the respondents for taking action against the petitioner and for passing the impugned order of discharge. In our considered view, the petitioner overstayed his leave and was punished for his untoward actions between 26th July, 1984 till 21st September, 1993. Admittedly, there is no other or subsequent order of punishment against the petitioner and he has not been punished for any reason after his punishment on 21st September, 1993. It is not worthy that the initial tenure of the ten year enrolment of the petitioner in the D. S. C. Commenced on 26th February, 1984 and came to an end on or about 21st February, 1994. The petitioner admittedly has incurred no punishment or red ink entry after 21st september, 1993. ( 12 ) THE respondents applied their mind while considering the case of the petitioner for further retention in the D. S. C. and granted him extension of service for the further period of five years from 22nd February, 1994 till 26th February, 1999. In these circumstances, the contentions of the petitioner that he was duly punished for his actions on 22nd July, 1984,21st April, 1992, 29th April, 1993 and 21st September, 1993 and therefore could not be given additional punishment for the same acts is well founded. The respondent themselves treated the petitioner has having been duly punished and thereafter granted the petitioner extension of service for a further period of five years from 22nd February, 1994. The action of discharge initiated and taken on 20th February, 1994, therefore, is in our view arbitrary and illegal. Additionally it could well be urged that the respondents having punished the petitioner, had considered the matter of those red ink entries as finally closed. ( 13 ) WE further find that the reliance on para 6 (b) of Record Office Instructions 2/s/89 d. S. C. by the respondents is also misconceived and untenable. These instructions also require the personnel to have suffered less than three red ink entries during the current spell of his D. S. C. Service. ( 13 ) WE further find that the reliance on para 6 (b) of Record Office Instructions 2/s/89 d. S. C. by the respondents is also misconceived and untenable. These instructions also require the personnel to have suffered less than three red ink entries during the current spell of his D. S. C. Service. Admittedly the petitioner had not suffered any red in entry in his current spell of service from 22nd february, 1994 till the date of his discharge. ( 14 ) FOR the same reason, the reliance place by the respondents on the Army Headquarter letter dated 9th September, 1998 is wholly misplaced inasmuch as the letter directs Units to take action to discharge such D. S. C. Personnel who have four or more red ink entries incurred after grant of the last extension after following due procedure. The respondents have also fairly admitted that the petitioner has not suffered any red ink entry after the date of his last extension on the 22nd February, 1994. ( 15 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that ends of discipline in the armed Forces and their allied services cannot be compromised in any manner whatsoever and therefore for this reason alone, the retention of the petitioner was undesirable as the petitioner was a bad example to other troops in the above background is not warranted. ( 16 ) DISCIPLINE is highly desirable and is essential for achieving the purpose for which Armed forces have been created and set up. However, in order to obtain discipline and obedience, it is essential that the personnel of the Armed Forces are dealt with an innate fairness and justice is meted out to the members of the Force. This is necessary to not only ensure discipline but to motivate these brave soldiers who perform their duties in the service of the nation who have to be motivated to lay down their lives to the cause of the nation. When guideline have been laid down and procedures prescribed they should be applied to the letter lest the same shall result in demoralisation in the lines and ranks of the forces which may lead to insubordination and indiscipline. Arbitrary action by itself shall negate the purpose for passing an order as has been done in the instant case. When guideline have been laid down and procedures prescribed they should be applied to the letter lest the same shall result in demoralisation in the lines and ranks of the forces which may lead to insubordination and indiscipline. Arbitrary action by itself shall negate the purpose for passing an order as has been done in the instant case. ( 17 ) IN our considered view, the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner on 20th February, 1999 had no legal basis and therefore cannot be permitted to stand. Admittedly the petitioner was completing his extended tenure on the 22nd February, 1999. The impugned order dated 20th february, 1999 has been passed without any application of mind and mechanically. Accordingly, we hold that the order dated 20th February, 1999 was arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to law and the same is here by set aside and quashed. ( 18 ) AS a result of the above, the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his service with effect from the date on which he was discharged that is the 20th February, 1999 and all consequential benefits including continuity f service, salary and consequential benefits upon retirement as are admissible in law to him. ( 19 ) IN view of our aforesaid discussion, the respondents are hereby further directed to recomputed the petitioner s entitlement with regard to his claim of pension, gratuity etc. taking into consideration the entire qualifying service for the purposes of computing his qualification for pension and any other benefits in accordance with law within a period of three weeks. Necessary order be passed which may be communicated to the petitioner within the period of two weeks thereafter. Such payments as are admissible and due to the petitioner may be processed and paid within a further period of two weeks from the passin of the orders by the respondents. The respondents have contended that certain payments have been made to the petitioner consequential upon his discharge, The respondents shall be entitled to adjustment of the same. If aggrieved, the petitioner shall, of course have the right to challenge the action of the respondents in accordance with law. ( 20 ) IN view of the above admitted position that only a short period of the petitioner s extended service alone remain to be completed, we are not inclined to grant the prayer for compensation which is rejected. Dasti.