SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) - On 28/6/1991 the petitioner was enrolled as a member of the Indian Army as Tele Communication Mechanic (Radio) in Corps of EME. Before his induction into Army, the petitioner was put to rigorous selection process involving physical tests, written tests and medical examination. He was found physically and mentally fit in all respects and was placed in medical category AYE which means completely fit. The petitioner underwent strenuous training at EME centre, Securiderabad for a period of more than three years. During the course of training and at the end of the training in the year 1994, the petitioner was again subjected to medical examination and was always found medically fit and placed in medical category AYE. Thereafter, he was posted to 196 (Indep) Field Workshop company which was locatmath which is situated at a height of approximately 6400 ft. and being surrounded by high snow hills. The weather there was extremely cold. The petitioner developed some physical problems due to extreme cold climate and arduous working conditions. He was brought to Military hospital, Bareilly where he remained under treatment and was placed in low medical category CEE (temporary) for six months. Classified specialist Lt. Col. S. Chaudhary in Psychiatry expressed his opinion as "no feature of psychosis. He has responded satisfactorily to treatment. . . . " The Medical Board had specifically mentioned in his report that petitioner at that time was unfit for high altitude area posting or posting at extreme cold regions. Despite these specific directions of the medical Board, the petitioner was again sent to the same unit where he remained for a further period of ten months. Instead of showing improvement the condition of the petitioner worsened. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was again subjected to Medical Board on 6. 10. 95 and on repeated recommendation of the Board, the petitioner was transferred to 604 EME battalion at Allahabad in March, 1996. He was posted to 288 Armed Workshop company located in field area in Rajasthan. In August, 1999 the petitioner was admitted to MH Bikanare for review but soon after he was transferred to Base hospital Delhi Cantt. where he was downgraded from Medical Category BEE to eee (Permanent ). He was posted to 288 Armed Workshop company located in field area in Rajasthan. In August, 1999 the petitioner was admitted to MH Bikanare for review but soon after he was transferred to Base hospital Delhi Cantt. where he was downgraded from Medical Category BEE to eee (Permanent ). This happened despite the fact that the condition of the petitioner stabilized during the posting in the peace area where weather conditions and working conditions were not so strenuous. Due to exposure to extreme climate coupled with arduous nature of duties that he had to perform, the disease was aggravated within a short span of 5-6 months as a result of which, he was permanently downgraded to category EEE (Permanent ). In terms of Army order 146/77 the petitioner was in BEE medical category and was fit to perform his duties with certain restrictions but the respondents arbitrarily downgraded the medical category to EEE and he was invalided out from Army service on 9. 11. 1999. ( 3 ) IT is the specifically pleaded case of the petitioner that in the aforenarrated facts the disease of the petitioner was attributable to and in any case aggravated by military service, as such the petitioner was entitled to disability pension. The invalidated Medical Board had determined the disability of the petitioner at 40% butthe same was said to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and as such the claim of the petitioner which was forwarded to PCDA (P) vide their letter dated 5/5/2000 was rejected on 30/11/2000. Against the order of rejection the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Ministry of Defence, Government of india through EME records on 14/2/2001 which was kept pending for a considerable time despite various reminders having been issued by the petitioner. This attitude of the respondents compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition before this court which he filed on 4/3/2002 being CWP No. 1540/2002 which was also allowed in terms of the order of the High Court passed in the case of Ex. Ct. Jasbir singh v. Union of India and Others. This attitude of the respondents compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition before this court which he filed on 4/3/2002 being CWP No. 1540/2002 which was also allowed in terms of the order of the High Court passed in the case of Ex. Ct. Jasbir singh v. Union of India and Others. Vide letter dated 18/5/2003 the petitioner again requested the respondents to comply with the orders of the Court and to release the disability pension in favour of the petitioner, however, vide letter dated 5/2/2004 the respondents still rejected the claim of the petitioner saying that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of disability pension. Compelled by these circumstances, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being CCP No. 108/2004 for disobeying the orders of the Court dated 6/3/2003 but the same was disposed of permitting the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 5/2/2004 by filing a substantive writ petition. This is how the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the correctness of the order dated 5/2/2004 passed by the respondents as well as bringing out the conduct of the respondents which is stated to be arbitrary and unfair. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition was filed and came up for hearing before the Court for the first time on 15/3/2004 but till date no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. We have directed the respondents to produce the original records which were produced and perused by us during the course of hearing. ( 5 ) THE facts of the case are really not in controversy including the fact that the petitioner was subjected to regular medical checkups. The main and probably only submission of the respondents based on the records produced before the Court is that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of disability pension as the disease psychoneurosis was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service though the disability of the petitioner was stated to be 40%. On behalf of the petitioner, while referring to various judgments of the Courts, it is contended that the disease of the petitioner is attributable to and aggravated by military service particularly in the facts and circumstances that the petitioner was physically and mentally fit at the time of joining military service. The recommendation of the medical Board in Form AFMSF- 16 is a mechanical exercise of power. The recommendation of the medical Board in Form AFMSF- 16 is a mechanical exercise of power. It neither provides any data or investigations nor it takes into consideration the opinion of the specified specialist (Psychiatry ). On the contrary, it is a mechanical exercise which ex facie is arbitrary and without any basis. ( 6 ) WE would proceed to refer and examine the effect of various pronouncements, the relevant rules and regulations to elucidate the effect and implications of the expression "attributable to and aggravated by military service" first and then would revert to the facts of the present case. ( 7 ) IN the case of Jarnatt Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , (1997) 2 PLR 580, where the Court referred and decided the ambit and scope of expression "attributable to and aggravated by military service" appearing in Para 173 of Pensions and regulations for Army, 1961 and after discussing the law, held as under:"the provisions of law which have a bearing on the matter in issue in this writ petition are Paras 173 and 175 of the Pension Regulations for the army, 1961, Rule 2 of Appendix II and Para 13 of Entitlement Rules to casualty Pensionary Awards to the Armed Forces Personnel, 1982. It will be appropriate to reproduce these provisions for proper appreciation of the contentions raised by respective parties-173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rule in Appendix II. 175. If the disability of an individual is wholly or partly due to his serious negligence or misconduct, the amount of disability pension otherwise admissible may be reduced at the discretion of the Competent Authority. "rule 2 in Appendix II reads as follows:"disablement or death shall be accepted as due to military service provided it is certified that, (i) is attributed to military service, or (ii) existed before or arose durng military service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. Para 13 of Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards to the armed Forces Personnel, 1982 reads as follows-13. Para 13 of Entitlement Rules to Casualty Pensionary Awards to the armed Forces Personnel, 1982 reads as follows-13. In respect of accidents or injuries, the following rules shall be observed- (a) Injuries sustained when the man is 'on duty' so defined shall be deemed to have resulted from military service, but in cases of injuries due to serious negligence/misconduct the question of reducing the disability pension will be considered. (b) In cases of self-inflicted injuries whilst on duty, attributability shall not be conceded unless it is established that service factors were responsible for such action, in cases where attributability is conceded, the question of grant of disability pension at full or at reduced rate will be considered. "firstly we have to consider, whether the period of casual leave of a person subject to Army Act can be termed as period on duty or not? Secondly, whether every injury suffered by such person during the period of his casual leave arising from any kind of act, omission or commission, would necessarily be attributable to or aggravated by military service or not? with regard to first question there could be hardly any controversy as the matter has been well settled by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble supreme Court of India as well as of this Court. In the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaur v. Union of India and Others, JT 1994 (1) SC 131, where the husband of the petitioner who was commissioned as a Lieutenant in the Indian Army and was subsequently promoted as Major, had died in mysterious circumstances, the Court while awarding compensation and treating him on duty held as under-In the aforesaid facts, the conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that the officer died while in service in mysterious circumstances and his death is attributable to and aggravated by the military service. The responsibility of his death isprima facie traceable to the action of criminal omissions and commissions on the part of the concerned authorities. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to suitable compensation as well as to the Special Family Pension and the children Allowance according to the relevant Rules. The responsibility of his death isprima facie traceable to the action of criminal omissions and commissions on the part of the concerned authorities. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to suitable compensation as well as to the Special Family Pension and the children Allowance according to the relevant Rules. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Krishan Dahiya v. Union of India and Another, 1996 (4) All Instant Judgments 506, where hawaldar in the Army Medical Corps suffered an injury while on casual leave and he was travelling by private vehicle, was treated to be on duty, after detailed discussion the Court held as under: it is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that an officer, subject to the Army Act, while he is on casual leave is considered to be on duty. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Joginder Singh v. Union of India, 1996 (2) SLR 149, and a division Bench judgment of this Court in Chatroo Ram v. Secretary, defence and Others, 1991 (1) SLR 678, it cannot be even disputed that an officer subject to the Army Act while on casual leave is to be treated on duty. If a person subject to Army Act is considered to be on duty while on casual leave, it would not make any difference whether he travels from duty station to leave station on his own expense or public expense as that cannot be the sine qua non for determining whether the person is on duty or not. He referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court reported as harbans Singh v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, new Delhi, AIR 1971 Delhi 227, wherein the officer in that case was to travel from Walong in N. E. F. A. , his duty station, to Patiala, his leave station. He had travelled from Walong to Jorhat and from Jorhat to calcutta by air at public expenses. From Calcutta to Ambala Cantt, he travelled on Form D and from there, he travelled on road by his own scooter to his leave station Patiala. It was while travelling on scooter from ambala to Patiala that he met with an accident which resulted in his disability. From Calcutta to Ambala Cantt, he travelled on Form D and from there, he travelled on road by his own scooter to his leave station Patiala. It was while travelling on scooter from ambala to Patiala that he met with an accident which resulted in his disability. The High Court held that though he was travelling at his own expense and by his own conveyance during the part of his journey from patiala to Rajpura, he was still to be treated to be on duty and entitled to disability pension. ""can it be said that he is not on duty because he was not travelling at public expense. To our mind the answer has to be that still he would be entitled to be treated as on duty. "still in another case of Ex. GNR Gaj Raj v. Union of India, 1996 (4) RSJ 517, the Court took the same view and held that the member of armed force while on casual leave can be considered on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits and in that case held that it is to be attributable to military service. Similar view was expressed by Division Bench of this court in CWP 2535 of 1995, P. V. Suvaranan v. Union of India and others, decided on 11. 9. 1995 and held as under:"further the petitioner was going to the Railway Station at the time of accident for the purpose of purchasing return journey ticket to join duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not on duty at the time when he met with an accident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner was on duty and the injury sustained by him in the course of accident was attributable to military service. "hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a very recent case of Joginder Singh v. Union of India and Others, 1996 (2) SLR 149, wherein the petitioner who was proceeding on casual leave from his duty station met with an accident while boarding the bus at the railway station, held as under:"the question for our consideration is. whether the appellant is entitled to the disability pension. We agree with the contention of mr. B. Kanta Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant being in regular Army there is no reason why he should not be treated as on duty when he was on casual leave. whether the appellant is entitled to the disability pension. We agree with the contention of mr. B. Kanta Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant being in regular Army there is no reason why he should not be treated as on duty when he was on casual leave. No Army regulation or Rule has been brought to our notice to show that the appellant is not entitled to disability pension. It is rather not disputed that an Army personnel on casual leave is treated to be on duty. We see no justification whatsoever in denying the disability pension to the appellant. "thus from the consistent view taken by various Courts including the hon'ble Apex Court, it appears to us that the first question has to be answered against the respondents as it is really no longer res Integra and has been fairly and elaborately answered in the above pronouncements. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that a person subject to the provisions of the Army Act, even if proceeds on casual leave, would be treated on duty and would be entitled to the benefits accruing therefrom in accordance with law. Necessary corollary to our aforementioned conclusion is the second question posed by us above. Whether every injury suffered by a member of the Armed Forces irrespective of its nature and origin can be termed"attributable to or aggravated by military service". In order to consider this basic question one has to refer and read the above stated provisions objectively while not losing the sight of their purpose and object. Certainly Regulations 173 and 175 indicate the legislative intention towards a liberal construction of these provisions. The above regulations and the provisions read in their correct perspective certainly imply that rule making authority intended to give very wider scope to the concept of payment of disability pension. Para 173 aforementioned is the substantive enabling provision which provides for grant of disability pension to a member of the force subject to the condition of disability being more than 20 percent and is attributable to or aggravated by military service. Para 175 must be read in conjunction with Para 173 which is the principal regulation controlling the subject. The scheme of these regulations shows that Para 175 is in aid to Para 173 and does not frustrate the basic ingredients of Para 173. Para 175 must be read in conjunction with Para 173 which is the principal regulation controlling the subject. The scheme of these regulations shows that Para 175 is in aid to Para 173 and does not frustrate the basic ingredients of Para 173. The case for claim of disability pension must satisfy the ingredients stated in para 173. In is then alone that Para 175 would become operative. Para 175 only elaborates the application of Para 173 by providing that even negligence or misconduct on the part of a member of the armed forces may not frustrate the claim by such person under Rule 173. Upon the harmonious construction of these two provisions meaningful interpretation would be that the remote nexus to the attributability and aggravation of disability by military service even if accompanied by the element of negligence or misconduct on the part of the member of the force would not by itself frustrate the right of the member to raise such a claim. However, the authority in discretion may apply, cut or reduce the amount of disability pension within the limited scope of Para 175. Clause 9 of Appendix II even does not place onus on the claimant to prove the condition of entitlement and any benefit of reasonable doubt would accrue in favour of the applicant and not against him. The members of the armed force being on duty would have to satisfy only concept of attributability as explained above, but no strict proof has to be established. Merely some remote nexus to the military service would be sufficient to sustain such a claim. The aforementioned provisions certainly indicate that liberal construction has to be afforded to this expression, but equally important is that such liberal construction should be in consonance with the object and purpose sought to be achieved by these provisions. We are of the considered view that the injury suffered by a member of the Armed Force must be directly or indirectly attributable to or aggravated by military service. May be remotely but it must find its origin from the nature and scope of the duties and discipline of the force. Obviously, a person on casual leave would not be performing his normal duties but the event which results in infliction of injury to the member of the force must be ancillary to the recognised sphere of military duty and discipline. Obviously, a person on casual leave would not be performing his normal duties but the event which results in infliction of injury to the member of the force must be ancillary to the recognised sphere of military duty and discipline. The injury causing disability, therefore, must springs from such event or circumstance which falls within expected standard of functioning of disciplined members of the armed forces. The expression attributable to military service has to be understood in its wide spectrum, but this understanding must find its limit within the principle of prudence and reasonableness. If the injury suffered by the member of the armed force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the above sense, it would not be legislative intention nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period would necessarily attributable to or aggravated by military service. The expression "attribute" means to ascribe, assign, consider as belonging that which is inherent in or inseparable from (The Chamber dictionery, 1994 Edition ). Attributability means attribution to its principal source. It may not be possible to precisely define the expression 'attributable' which could apply as a matter of principle to the cases of present kind. But this expression has now been well understood and explained in various pronouncements even in English Law. It may be appropriate to refer to the meaning described in the Butterwords "words and Phrases Legally Defined, Volume 1 : A-C which is as follows:"these words have been considered in a number of cases and I do not wish to add to the explanations and definitions which have been given. Counselfor Mr. Walshsubmits that it is a wider concept than directly caused by', or 'caused by or resulting from but he accepts that it involves some nexus between the effect and the alleged cause. He suggests that 'owing to' or 'a material contributory cause' or 'a material cause in some way contributing to the effect' may be synonymous. Lord Reid in Central Asbestos Co. v. Dodd, (1972) 2 ALL ER 1135, said: 'attributable'. That means capable of being attributed. He suggests that 'owing to' or 'a material contributory cause' or 'a material cause in some way contributing to the effect' may be synonymous. Lord Reid in Central Asbestos Co. v. Dodd, (1972) 2 ALL ER 1135, said: 'attributable'. That means capable of being attributed. 'attribute' has a number of cognate meanings: you can attribute a quality to a person or thing, you can attribute a product to a source or author, you can attribute an effect to a cause. The essential element is connection of some kind. "suffice it to say that these are plain English words involving some casual connection between the loss of employment and that to which the loss is said to be attributable. However, this connection need not be that of a sole, dominant, direct or proximate cause and effect. A contributory casual connection is quite sufficient- Walsh v. Rother District Council, (1978) I ER 510 at 514, per Donaldson. 1. "the act, omission or commission which results in injury to the member of the force and consequential disability must relate to military service in some manner or the other. In other words, the act must flow as a matter of necessity from military service. As noticed in the aforesaid case a member of the force who proceeds on casual leave or returns from casual leave or while on casual leave goes to get a ticket or warrant for his return, etc. suffers an injury which ultimately results in invalidating out from Army, of the member of the force, that could be termed as an injury or disability attributable to military service. While on the other hand a person who may be doing some act at home which even remotely does not fall within the scope of his duties or functions as a member of the force nor is remotely connected with the function of the military service and expected standard and way of living of such member of the force cannot be termed as an injury or disability attributable to military service. For example a person who gets drunk while on casual leave fights with his neighbours, inflict injuries or suffers injuries, resulting in some disability to him as a result of which he is invalided out of Army with some extent of disability, to our mind cannot be said to be a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service. For example a person who gets drunk while on casual leave fights with his neighbours, inflict injuries or suffers injuries, resulting in some disability to him as a result of which he is invalided out of Army with some extent of disability, to our mind cannot be said to be a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service. Aggravation of a disease in the provisions of Section 29 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act, 1971 has been explained in the case of Commonwealth v, Johnston, (1980) 31 AIR 445, in the following manner:"although it may be possible to attribute a meaning of growing worse to the term 'aggravation' in the abstract, it is not possible to construe aggravation of a disease in Section 29 as meaning a growing worse of a disease to which nothing but the natural progress of the disease has contributed. Something else must contribute an increased gravity to the employee's disease, a gravity over and beyond what the natural progress of the disease produces. " the expression "attributable to or aggravated by military service" must be read ejusd em generis with Rule 2 in Appendix II and opening line of regulation 173. It must be read in conjunction with the scheme of these provisions and has to be given purposeful meaning. To understand this phrase better it may be appropriate to make reference to the phrase "arising out of and in the course of his employment. " This expression occurs in the provisions of the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948. The supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, ESI Corporation and another v. Francis De Costa and Another, (1996) 6 SCC 1 , observed as under:"the injury suffered by the respondent in the instant case did not arise in any way out of his employment. Unless it can be said that his employment begins as soon as he sets out for the factory from his home, it cannot be said that the injury was caused by an accident arising out of his employment. ' A road accident may happen anywhere at any time. But such accident cannot be said to have arisen out of employment, unless it can be shown that the employee was doing something incidental to his employment. By using the words 'arising out of his employment the Legislature gave a restrictive meaning to 'employment injury. ' A road accident may happen anywhere at any time. But such accident cannot be said to have arisen out of employment, unless it can be shown that the employee was doing something incidental to his employment. By using the words 'arising out of his employment the Legislature gave a restrictive meaning to 'employment injury. The injury must be of such an extent as can be attributed to an accident or an occupational disease arising out of his employment. Out of in this context, must mean caused by employment. ""in order to succeed, it has to be proved by the employee that (1)there was an accident, (2) the accident had a casual connection with the employment, and (3) the accident was suffered in the course of employment. In the instant case the employee was unable to prove that the accident had any casual connection with the work he was going at the factory and in any event, it was not suffered in the course of employment. "the injury or disability must be incidental to military service. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Baljit Singh, 1997 (1) SLR 98 while declining to interfere with the judgment of the High Court held as under:"in each case, when a disability pension is sought for and made a claim it must be affirmatively established, as a fact, as to whether the injury sustained was due to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation for the military service. Accordingly, we are of the view that High Court was not totally correct in reaching that conclusion. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that it is an appropriate case for interference. "on proper analysis of the above discussion the position that emerges is that an accident or injury suffered by a member of the armed forces must have some casual connection to the aggravation or attributability to military service and at least should arise from such activity of the member of the force as he is expected to maintain or do in his day-to-day life as a member of the force. The nexus between the two is not apparently one so as to cover every injury or accident. The nexus between the two is not apparently one so as to cover every injury or accident. The hazards of Army service cannot be stretched to the extent of unlawful and entirely unconnected acts or omissions on the part of the member of the force even when he is on leave. The fine line of distinction has to be drawn between the matters connected, aggravated or attributable to military service and the matters entirely alien to such service. What falls ex facie in the domain of an entirely private act which may even extend to the sphere of undesirable and unlawful activity of such member, cannot be treated as legitimate basis for claiming the relief under these provisions. At best, the member of the force can claim disability pension if he suffers disability from an injury while on casual leave even if its arises from some negligence or misconduct on the part of the member of the force, so far it has some connection and nexus to the nature of duty and expected standard of living from such member of the force. At least remote attributability to service and expected standards of behaviour and living, of the member of the force appears to be the condition precedent to claim under Rule 173. The act of omission and commission on the part of the member of the force must satisfy the test of prudence, reasonableness, and expected standards of behaviour. We may elucidate the above principle by giving a very simple example that if a person on casual leave and subject to this act goes to canteen to buy things or takes his children for treatment to hospital and on the way meets with an accident, may be arising out of his negligence or contributory negligence, suffers injuries causing permanent disability, in our view, would be entitled to claim the benefit under Rule 173. Similarly a person who joins Army is not found to be suffering from any disease, but subsequently suffers from a disease which renders him liable for invalidated out of Army on such ill-health, such a disease would be attributable and/or aggravated by military service and would entitle him to take benefit of these regulations. " ( 8 ) IN the case of Jagmel Singh, Ex. Sep. v. Union of India and Ors. " ( 8 ) IN the case of Jagmel Singh, Ex. Sep. v. Union of India and Ors. , (2000)2 PLR 646, the Court also discussed the impact of Instruction No. 27 issued by the respondents relating to functions and responsibilities of the medical authorities and held as under"learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that the disability pension could be denied to the petitioner by CCDA (P), if found the disability to be less than 20%. He relied upon Paras 17 and 27c of the revised Entitlement Rules, 1982 to contend that CCDA (P) was competent Authority to do so. I have already noticed that the facts in the present case are hardly in issue and as far as the question of law is concerned that stood answered by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Nath v. Union of India and Others, (1998-1) 118 PLR 847, where the Court, after discussing the law in detail, held as under-Once this certificate was issued in favour of the appellant entitling him to receive the disability pension, this benefit could not have been withdrawn by the Controller of Defence Accounts (P), allahabad on his own without holding Appellate Medical Board in accordance with law. Exhibit D3 while rejecting the claim of the appellant referred to period of 10 years previous of 25. 6. 1988 and disability being less than 20%. This was never put to the appellant prior to the passing of the order. If the appellant was entitled to the benefit in accordance with the rules on the strength of the disability certificate. Ex, P1 the appellant could not be divested of the same without following due process of law and after giving proper opportunity to the appellant which admittedly has not been done in the present case. The corollary to this main issue is as to whether the controller of Defence Accounts (P), Allahabad at all was justified in assuming the jurisdiction which is not vested in it under the rules. Under the relevant rules and instructions, the respondents have the authority to constitute an Appellate Board and disturb the findings arrived at by the first Medical Board which again was not done. It would not be permissible to disturb the findings without taking recourse to the relevant rules and instructions governing the subject. Under the relevant rules and instructions, the respondents have the authority to constitute an Appellate Board and disturb the findings arrived at by the first Medical Board which again was not done. It would not be permissible to disturb the findings without taking recourse to the relevant rules and instructions governing the subject. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in C. W. P. No. 17688 of 1996, Ex-Sepoy, Ujagar singh v. Union of India and Others, decided on 9. 10. 1997 :1997 (4) RST 587, where this Court in somewhat similar circumstances, after discussing in detail the matter governing the subject held as under-We are unable to see as to how the accounts branch dealing with the pension can sit over the judgment of the experts in the medical line and comment upon the extent of disability without making any reference to a detailed or higher Medical Board which can be constituted under the relevant instructions and rules by the Director general of Army Medical Core. Somewhat similar defence was raised on behalf of the Union of India before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ex-Sepoy Mohinder Singh v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1993 decided on 14th January, 1993, where the Court held as under: we have examined the relevant materials and we do not feel satisfied with the plea taken in the counter affidavit. No detail of the consultation has been disclosed by the respondent nor it is claimed that the appellant has been re-examined by any higher medical authority. We are not prepared to sit on the vague allegations in the counter affidavit referred to above. In view of all the relevant circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the disability pension assessed at the rate of 40% by the Medical Board which had examined the appellant, should be respected until fresh Medical board examined the appellant again and reached different conclusion. An identical stand was taken by the Union of India in the case of Mam Raj v. Union of India, CWP No. 2302 of 1997 decided on 10. 9. An identical stand was taken by the Union of India in the case of Mam Raj v. Union of India, CWP No. 2302 of 1997 decided on 10. 9. 1997 by this court where this Court held as under: instruction No. 27 under the head of "functions and responsibilities" of Appendix-II of these instructions at best empowers the medical Authority so constituted to give its view about assessment of disablement restricted to the medical issues. The Medical board's views and findings could be subjected to an appellate view by the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services whose view would be final. Nothing has been brought on record before us which would show that subsequent to the Medical Board, as a result of which the petitioner was discharged from Army, was held by the competent Authority and that gave any findings contrary to the view expressed by the earlier Medical Board. Reference can also be made to the decision rendered in LPA No. 82 of 1997 titled as Union of India and Others v. Ex. Captain Harbhajan Singh, decided on 25,4. 1997. In the present writ petition, no details have stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India nor any documents has been produced before us which could satisfy the above enunciated principles. It has also been held that pension and likewise the disability pension is recurring cause of action and mere delay will not frustrate the claim of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the case of Ram singh Jaggi v. Union of India and Others, 1995 (4) RSJ 807, where a division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court took the same view. From the above settled principles of law, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned Courts below have fallen in error in coming to the conclusion that the Controller of Defence Accounts (P), allahabad can disturb the findings of the Medical Board in the present manner. Admittedly, no evidence has been brought on record much less an expert evidence recorded by the medical officer to show that the finding recorded by the Medical Board were incorrect factually or otherwise. Admittedly, no evidence has been brought on record much less an expert evidence recorded by the medical officer to show that the finding recorded by the Medical Board were incorrect factually or otherwise. " ( 9 ) THERE are certain provisions or instructions which have not been specifically discussed by the Court in the above cited cases but at the same time they have a bearing on the matter in issue before us. The obligation on the member of a force as well as upon the various authorities in the hierarchy of medical core are well explained in these regulations or in instructions. In fact, the regulations deal with the health of a soldier from the stage when he is declared fit to be enrolled in the indian Army till the time he superannuates or is invalided for medical reasons whichever be the case. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations gives entitlement to a member to claim disability pension subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. Appendix-11 to Regulations 48, 173 and 185 states the conditions of entitlement under the head "entitlement Rules for Casualty pensionary Awards, 1982". Rule 12 of 1982 Rules states that a person subject to disciplinary code of the Armed Forces is on "duty": (a) When performing an official task or a task, failure to do which would constitute an offence triable under the disciplinary code applicable to him. (b) When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective of the mode of movement. (c) During the period of participation in recreation and other unit activities organised or permitted by Service Authorities and during the period of travelling in a body or singly by a prescribed or organised route. (See judgments in the book also)NOTE: 1 (a) Personnel of the armed forces participating in (i) local/national international sports tournaments as member of service teams, or (ii) mountaineering expeditions/gliding organised by service authorities, with the approval of Service Hqrs. , will be deemed to be "on duty" for purposes of these rules. (b) Personnel of the armed forces participating in the above named sports tournaments or in privately organised mountaineering expeditions or indulging in the gliding as a hobby in their individual capacity, will not be deemed to be 'on duty' for purposes of these rules, even though prior permission of the competent service authorities may have been obtained by them. (b) Personnel of the armed forces participating in the above named sports tournaments or in privately organised mountaineering expeditions or indulging in the gliding as a hobby in their individual capacity, will not be deemed to be 'on duty' for purposes of these rules, even though prior permission of the competent service authorities may have been obtained by them. (c) Injuries sustained by the personnel of the armed forces in impromptu games and sports outside parade hours, which are organised by, or with the approval of, the local service authority, and death or disability arising from such injuries, will continue to be regarded as having occurred while on duty for purposes of these rules. Note : 2 the personnel of the armed forces deputed for training at courses conducted by the Himalayan Mountaineering Institute, Darjeeling shall be treated on par with personnel attending other authorised professional courses or exercises for the Defence Services for the purpose of the grant of disability/family pension on account of disability/death sustained during the courses. (d) When proceeding from his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station, provided entitled to travel at public expenses i. e. on railway warrants, on concessional voucher, on cash TA (irrespective of whether railway warrant/cash TA is admitted for the whole journey or for a portion only), in Government transport or when road mileage is paid/payable for the journey. (e) When journeying by a reasonable route from one's quarter to and back from the appointed place of duty, under organised arrangements or by a private conveyance when a person is entitled to use service transport but that transport is not available. (f) An accident which occurs when a man is not strictly on duty as defined may also be attributable to service provided that it involved risk which was definitely enhanced in kind or degree by the nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of his service and that the same was not a risk common to human existence in modem conditions in india. Thus for instance, where a person is killed or injured by another party by reason of belonging to the armed forces, he shall be deemed 'on duty' at the relevant time. This benefit will be given more liberally or the claimant in cases occurring on active service as defined in the Army/navy/air Force Act. Thus for instance, where a person is killed or injured by another party by reason of belonging to the armed forces, he shall be deemed 'on duty' at the relevant time. This benefit will be given more liberally or the claimant in cases occurring on active service as defined in the Army/navy/air Force Act. ( 10 ) RULE 13 relates to accidents or injuries which are suffered when the man is "on duty" as defined and shall be deemed to have resulted from military service. However, Rule 14 deals with diseases and states that cases in which it is established that conditions of military service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent courses of the disease will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. Sub-rule 3 of the same Rule clearly indicates that a disease which has led to individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service. Clause (c) of Rule 14 states that if a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service. ( 11 ) UNDER Regulation 135 of the Defence Service Regulations for Army volume 1, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities that all recruits will prior to enrollment or engagement, subjected to a medical examination in the prescribed manner. Whenever a Recruiting Medical Officer is in doubt as to the nature of a disability, he may refer the recruit to a Specialist for examination and opinion as to his suitability for enrollment in the Army. This will be done only when the recruit is fit in all other respects, and a reasonable doubt exists regarding the disability or the disabilities in question. Even under Clause 8 of the Regulations for Medical services of the Armed Forces, 1962 as amended under Defence Service of regulations, the general duties of a Medical Officer is to assess the physical fitness of the candidate for Commissions in the Armed Forces, of recruits, and of others, prior to entering the Armed Forces. Even under Clause 8 of the Regulations for Medical services of the Armed Forces, 1962 as amended under Defence Service of regulations, the general duties of a Medical Officer is to assess the physical fitness of the candidate for Commissions in the Armed Forces, of recruits, and of others, prior to entering the Armed Forces. It is thus obvious that person intending to join army has to undergo physical and medical tests adhering to the prescribed norms. It is obligatory on the part of the authorities to properly examine an individual before permitting him to be enrolled as a member of the Armed Forces and in the event there is a doubt, the matter has to be referred to a Specialist to remove that doubt in regard to physical fitness of an individual. The purpose of powers and obligations given to a Medical Officer and strict adherence to prescribed medical standards in case of recruitment is to achieve undisputed object that no person suffering from any ailment is inducted into Army. ( 12 ) AFTER the individual suffers from any injury and/or disease and is required to be invalided out of service as per same Regulation 421, a Medical Board will be arranged and held at once. The Medical Board is required to expeditiously conclude and more particularly in cases of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Epilepsy, Amputation and Psychosis. Regulation 422 further casts an obligation on the Medical Board to answer the various questions in the prescribed form upon due application of mind while taking note of the detailed directions contained in Regulations 422 and 423 in that regard. The Specialist's report should be reproduced in the statement of the case. As per Regulation 422 (d) the Invaliding Medical Board is expected to make its own assessment, reasoning and conclusions without being influenced by the proceedings of the previous Medical Boards. This obviously indicates the intent of the rule making authority that the Invaliding Medical Board has to discharge its functions and duties with clear independence and in a manner which would be acceptable to the prescribed medical standards. Mere 'yes'and 'no' may not serve the object of such intent. It is in the modern times where means of investigations amply and possibly tend to touch perfection. Mere impression of doctors would not serve the purpose and discharge the obligations placed upon the authorities under these provisions. Mere 'yes'and 'no' may not serve the object of such intent. It is in the modern times where means of investigations amply and possibly tend to touch perfection. Mere impression of doctors would not serve the purpose and discharge the obligations placed upon the authorities under these provisions. Under Regulation 423 (a), the Board is expected to take into consideration the evidence both direct and circumstantial. The authorities medical and administrative are required to weigh the evidence while deciding the question of attributability or aggravation. The opinion of the Medical Board under Clause 423 (d) DSR-Medical is final unless it is questioned before the Medical Board or is patently perverse. ( 13 ) THE cumulative effect of the above enunciated principles of law and various rules, regulations and instructions is that the authorities are expected to act with great caution while invaliding a person from military service. A person who has been indicted into military service after rigorous medical examination and has been found consistently fit in all respects, suddenly suffers from a sickness as a result of his sufficiently long service in Army at different places of high altitude with difficult duties of the Army, it may not be fair for the authorities to say that the disease is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service particularly in absence of any medical diagnosis or data being discussed or placed on record. It would be unjust and unfair to permit writing of'no' and/or 'yes' simplicitor, despite the medical records showing that the patient/army personnel, was not suffering from any disease earlier or the same was not organically attributable to his constitution. ( 14 ) ONCE the Medical Board finds a disease as 'attributable to and aggravated by military service and his disability is more than 20% then it has to forward afmsf-16 to the pension authorities in terms of Rule 12 of the Pension Regulations. Regulation 12 requires communication of sanction to the Accounts Officer. The language of this Regulation shows that the pension is sanctioned by the concerned authorities after completion of the proceedings of Medical Board and then it is communicated for arranging its payment. Assumption by Accounts officer of the pension authorities to sit over the judgment of the Medical Board is apparently without jurisdiction and, in fact, is impermissible under Regulation 423 (d ). Assumption by Accounts officer of the pension authorities to sit over the judgment of the Medical Board is apparently without jurisdiction and, in fact, is impermissible under Regulation 423 (d ). In this regard reference can also be made to a very recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of JC 264 149m Ex. Naib Sub Maritt Sharon tiwari v. Union of India and Orx. , being CWP No. 23320/05 decided on 13. 7. 2006. ( 15 ) VARIOUS Benches of this Court as well as all other High Courts have taken the view that the disease like Schizophrenia, Neurosis and Epilepsy, etc. are the diseases which are normally attributable to and/or aggravated by Army Service unless there was definite medical evidence on record to show that the onset of such disease was prior to the joining of Army and was constitutional in the sense that their cause was not known and in all probable possibilities they could relate back to the period prior to the enrollment of the individual in the Armed Forces. A division bench of this Court in the case of Satpal Singh (Mr.) v. Union of India and Ors. , 79 (1999) DLT 576=1999 IV AD (Delhi) 321, held as under:"what sort of Schizophrenia from which the petitioner suffered has also not been indicated by the Medical Board. Hallucination from which such patient suffers are of three types namely; (i) Auditory, (ii) Visual or (iii)Somatosensory. Auditory Schizophrenia occurs when a person imagines that somebody is talking against him. Visual Schizophrenia is when he imagines something like seeking ghosts, etc. Nothing has been said by the respondent as to from which category of Schizophrenia the petitioner suffered. From whatever category of "schizophrenia" the petitioner suffered it would have been apparent when he was medically examined in June, 1982 or at any time thereafter. But none of the Medical Boards prior to October, 1990 declared that the petitioner was suffering from "schizophrenia" or any mental disorder. Therefore it would not be correct on the part of respondent to say that petitioner suffered from constitutional disorder. Constitutional disorder would have in some form or the other must have manifested itself. But it did not till October, 1990. Therefore, the rejection on the ground of constitutional disorder cannot be appreciated. Mr. Therefore it would not be correct on the part of respondent to say that petitioner suffered from constitutional disorder. Constitutional disorder would have in some form or the other must have manifested itself. But it did not till October, 1990. Therefore, the rejection on the ground of constitutional disorder cannot be appreciated. Mr. S. M. Hooda's contention has a force when he urged that in the year 1990 there was insurgency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner being posted in the forward area of that State due to anxiety night have suffered from "schizophrenia". Since he had already suffered from Neurosis earlier and being posted in the forward area anxiety got aggravated and became a case of Schizophrenia. For this argument of Mr. Hooda, Counsel for the respondent had no answer. He could not deny the fact that the petitioner was posted during the relevant time in the forwarding area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He also could not contradict the fact that it was while posted in the field area that the petitioner suffered from Neurosis. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Schizophrenia from which the petitioner suffered was a consequence of Neurosis. As per respondent's own showing petitioner developed psychiatric breakdown in June, 1990 when he started feeling of sadness, fear from unknown, lack of concentration, loss of interest in work, etc. He showed depressive features while posted in the field area of the State of jammu and Kashmir. This ultimately led him to Schizophrenia. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the disease on account of which petitioner was invalided out of service was not attributable to service nor aggravated because of his service. In fact the presumption ought to have been drawn as per Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7 by the respondent. On account of his service presumption can be drawn that the petitioner suffered from this disease on account of his military service and it aggravated by military service. Instead of raising the presumption as is required to be raised under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7, the Controller of Defence Accounts rejected the disability pension without any reason and without appreciating the facts of this case. Admittedly, the onset of the disease was during the course of service. Instead of raising the presumption as is required to be raised under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7, the Controller of Defence Accounts rejected the disability pension without any reason and without appreciating the facts of this case. Admittedly, the onset of the disease was during the course of service. There was no reason for Controller of Defence accounts not to accept the recommendation of the Commanding Officer, which in this case was made to enable the petitioner to get the disability pension. The Commanding Officer of the petitioner sanctioned the disability pension w. e. f. 6th July, 1991. Duly sanctioned case was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 i. e. Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Dropdi Ghaat, Allahabad which was in consonance with the presumption which is to be raised under Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7, which the respondent No. 2 failed to do without any reason. " ( 16 ) STILL in another case titled as Ex. Sub. Major Ram Kishan v. UOI and ors. , being CWP No. 2221/2005 decided on 14. 3. 2006 where the petitioner was suffering from Achalasia Cardia (Optd) and Essential Hypertension disease was invalided from military service by the Medical Board, though the Court partially allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to hold Review Medical Board for the petitioner but after discussing the case law and relevant rules held as under:"when an individual is found suffering from any disease or has sustained injury, he is examined by the medical experts who would not only examine him but also ascertain the nature of disease/injury and also record a decision as to whether the said personnel is to be placed in a medical category which is lower than 'aye' (fit category) and whether temporarily or permanently. They also give a medical assessment and advice as to whether the individual is to be brought before the release/ invaliding Medical Board. The said release/invaliding Medical Board generally consists of three doctors and they, keeping in view the clinical profile, the date and place of onset of invaliding disease/disability and service conditions, draws a conclusion as to whether the disease/injury has a causal connection with military service or not. On the basis of the same they recommend (a) attributability, or (b) aggravation, or (c)whether connected with service. The second aspect which is also examined is the extent to which the functional capacity of the individual is impaired. On the basis of the same they recommend (a) attributability, or (b) aggravation, or (c)whether connected with service. The second aspect which is also examined is the extent to which the functional capacity of the individual is impaired. The same is adjudged and an assessment is made of the percentage of the disability suffered by the said personnel which is recorded so that the case of the personnel could be considered for grant of disability element of pension. Another aspect which is taken notice of at this stage is the duration for which the disability is likely to continue. The same is assessed/recommended in view of the disease being capable of being improved. All the aforesaid aspects are recorded and recommended in the form AFMSF-16. The Invaliding Medical Board forms its opinion/recommendation on the basis of the medical report, injury report, court of inquiry proceedings, if any, charter of duties relating to peace or field area and of course, the physical examination of the individual. It was also held that the opinion given by the doctors of the Medical Board shall be given due weightage and primacy in the matter for ascertaining as to whether or not the injury/illness sustained was due to or was aggravated by the military service which contributed to invalidation from the military service. At this stage we may also take up the plea raised by the petitioner that the disease from which the petitioner had suffered cannot be said to be constitutional in nature. This submission is sought to be supported by this court in Satpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra ). In that regard suffice is to say that the ratio of the decision in Satpal Singh's case (supra), is now stood impliedly repealed by the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and Others v. S. Balachandran Nair, reported as AIR 2005 SC 4391 . In the said decision, the Supreme Court after considering the various provisions and the decisions on the subject including the case of Union of India and another v. Baljit Singh, reported as 1996 (11)SCC 315 , held that Medical board's opinion to the effect that illness and disability suffered by the respondent therein was not attributable to military service cannot be substituted by the Court in order to arrive at a contrary finding. It was also held that where a Medical Board found that there was absence of proof of the injury/illness having been sustained due to military service or being attributable thereto, the High Court's direction to the Government to pay disability pension was not correct. The Supreme Court also dealt with the contention that the fact that the employee was posted at sensitive border area and, therefore, his illness is fully attributable to military service was negatived by the Supreme Court in the said decision. We may also refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Md. Tanwir Alam v. Union of India and Others (supra ). In the said case also the petitioner was enrolled as Nursing Assistant and while undergoing training he developed the said disease within a short period when the aforesaid disease was diagnosed. Despite the said fact the Division Bench has held that the decision of the appropriate medical authority coming to the conclusion that the disease of the employee was not related to the military service cannot be interfered with. We may also refer to the decision of Shri Bhagwan (supra ). In paragraphs 185, 186 and 187 reference was made to other decisions of the Single judges of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court overruled the single Judge's decision holding that when the Medical Board has given a categorical opinion that the petitioner's ailment was constitutional and even the CCDA had opined that the petitioner was not suffering from any ailment which could be attributed to or aggravated by military service and that it did not exist before or during military service, such opinion could not be set aside merely because it was felt that that the word "constitutional" is not an adequate reason for denying disability pension. In our considered opinion, the law is, therefore, crystal clear on the subject needs no further reiteration. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position which is made can by several decisions of this Court as also by the Supreme Court the facts of the present case are required to be considered. Here is also a case where the Release Medical Board has given its definite opinion that the disease from which the petitioner is suffering is constitutional in nature and that the said disease and disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. Here is also a case where the Release Medical Board has given its definite opinion that the disease from which the petitioner is suffering is constitutional in nature and that the said disease and disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The said report of the Medical Board will have definite primacy, but in the facts of the present case we also find that there was a Medical Board earlier constituted which examined the petitioner medically and found that there was Hypertension from which the petitioner was suffering. It was held by the said Medical Board that the disease was aggravated by military service. Therefore, there is a conflict of opinion between the two Medical Boards, one gave its opinion in 1974 whereas the other Medical Board has given its opinion in 1983. It is true that the despite the opinion given by the Medical Board in 1974 the petitioner worked with the respondents for 10 more years and he stood discharged from service after completing his tenure. But it is apparent on the records of the case that the petitioner was still suffering in 1983 from the same disease i. e. Hypertension and there was an additional disease, namely, Achalasia Cardia (Optd) from which he was found to be suffering from. " ( 17 ) THE Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sub-Lieutenant Chaman azhar v. Union of India and Others, (2003) 4 SLR 183, held in favour of the petitioner that Psychiatric disorder was attributable or aggravated by military service. In this case the Court held as under:"in Price's Text Book of the Practice of Medicine, learned author Price has discussed the aetiology of'schizophrenia' as under 'the Sole of genetics is undoubtedly important, but recent observations suggested that although genetic factors may be necessary they are not always sufficient for the occurrence of Schizophrenic illness; environmental influences can also play their part in the casual chain. Recent mental stress may sometimes be the starting point of an attack, but in a considerable proportion of these cases the reported overwork, disappointment in love or other painful experience, is found to have been a product of the already existing illness, or the last of a long series of disturbing events. No recent or remote experience is ever sufficient to account for illness without regard to intrinsic causes. No recent or remote experience is ever sufficient to account for illness without regard to intrinsic causes. No matter how searchingly the patient's life be resurrected and analysed, it is scarcely ever possible to discover that anything happened to him with which would have led to his adopting a Schizophrenic way of shunning daily life unless he had been somehow disposed to it from the beginning; although, of course, much may have happened to him that has strengthened and fostered the disposition. In Text Book of Medicine by Rustom Jal Vakil disease "schizophrenia" has been discussed as under:'aetiology; heredity is considered an important factor in the aetiology of the disease. Specialist in genetics have discovered significant difference in the incidence of the illness in monozygotic an dizygotic twins. The nature of genetic transmission is however not clear. Individuals with asthenic builds, thin, tall and wiry frames and with a tendency to be shy, reserved and withdrawn are particularly prone Schizophrenia. The vast majority of individuals with such constitutions are usually well adjusted, but if they prove incapable of standing up, to the stresses and strains of life, they tend to develop a Schizophrenic type of psychosis. A tendency to withdraw from social and emotional contacts with people and an increasing tendency to withdraw from one's environment are often present along before the actual onset of the illness. Intensive biochemical studies have revealed numerous abnormalities, including disturbances of protein carbohydrate metabolisms, enzyme reactions, abnormalities or urine and cerebrospinal fluid and the presence of so-called serum toxins (teraxin ). The exact aetiological significance of such charges has however not been elucidated so far. Some consider Schizophrenia as an auto immune disorder. This too remains unproved. ( 18 ) SIMILAR view in regard to Schizophrenia was taken by the Punjab and haryana High Court in the case of Ram Niwas Goswami v. Union of India, (1999)7 SLR 458. ( 19 ) IN view of the above medical and legal explanations in regard to this disease, it is quite possible that a person may suffer Schizophrenia or other psychiatric diseases as a result of stress and strain, which an individual may be incapable of standing up to at a given point of time. More than often it may not be contributable or result of a constitutional disease or constitutional disorder. More than often it may not be contributable or result of a constitutional disease or constitutional disorder. We have attempted to explain the constitutional disorder/disease as is understood in medical terms or even in common parlance. The need for a precise medical examination and clear remarks supported by investigative or clinical data is the essence of a medical report which would have primacy particularly in proceedings before the Court. A valuable right in relation to grant of pension of an individual is affected, thus, the authorities are expected to act with greater caution while making recommendations and administrative authorities while granting or declining such relief to the person. ( 20 ) IN the case of Ex-Signalman Shri Bhagwan v. Union of India and Ors. , 103 (2003) DLT269 (DB), the Court had discussed the law in detail with reference to various provisions of the Army Act, Rules, Regulations, etc. The propositions of Law stated therein are not a matter of dispute before us. But we must notice that certain provisions, instructions and judgments of different Courts were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. We have to look into the stated principles, keeping in view the amended Regulations as well as the various other judgments of this Court and other Courts, which have been pronounced subsequent to the judgment. The Division Bench after detailed discussion remanded the connected matters to the CDA (P)/ccda (P), Allahabad, to reconsider them in light of the conclusions and directions given in the said judgment. The primacy of medical opinion expressed by the Medical Board constituted in light of the above principles can hardly be disputed. The respondents have heavily relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and others v. S. Balachandran Nair, VIII (2005) SLT 269= air 2005 SC 4391 , to contend that the opinion of the Medical Board is final and cannot be questioned before the Court. The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in this case is not a matter of controversy and in any case is binding on the Courts. Their lordships have clearly indicated that the view expressed by the Medical Board has primacy and would be respected by the Courts. The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in this case is not a matter of controversy and in any case is binding on the Courts. Their lordships have clearly indicated that the view expressed by the Medical Board has primacy and would be respected by the Courts. There can be no doubt to the proposition that for the opinion of the Medical Board to attain its primacy as afore-referred, it must be in conformity with the statutory provisions framed by the competent authorities. If a report is ex facie not in conformity with the various regulations, is not supported by any investigative or diagnostic evidence and is arbitrary or ex facie perverse then it cannot be permitted to have the same value as indicated in the various judgments of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. ( 21 ) WE have already discussed at great length that the rules and regulations postulate proper application of mind by the Medical Board to arrive at conclusions which would be supported by proper reason or documentation. It is so, primarily for the reason that a member of the force could be invalided from service and there should exist a cause and such cause must have nexus to his discharge in conformity with rules and regulations. It is a settled principle of law that when rules require something to be done then that thing must be done in that manner alone or not. Adherence to the provided procedure is essential and the authorities cannot act contrary to a procedure which they themselves provided for in accordance with their Rules. Once reports are prepared contrary to the procedure provided by the statute, Rules, Regulations and Instructions, it is bound to cause prejudice to the affected party. From the words of the law there should be no departure nor should they be given a meaning which would not further the cause of the Rule. We may refer to the case of Dr. Sudha Suriv. Union of India (Pb. and Hry.) and Ors. , 2002 (1) SLR 665, where the Court held as under:"it is a settled principle of law that once methodology for doing a particular act is provided under the statute, rules or regulations, then such act must be done in the manner and way prescribed alone and in no other way. Union of India (Pb. and Hry.) and Ors. , 2002 (1) SLR 665, where the Court held as under:"it is a settled principle of law that once methodology for doing a particular act is provided under the statute, rules or regulations, then such act must be done in the manner and way prescribed alone and in no other way. Reference can usefully be made to a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of AT. G. Nanchahal and Anotherv. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 8810 of 2001 decided on 11. 10. 2001, where the Court held as under-'it is a settled principle of law that the act must be done in the prescribed manner and in no other way. The conditions of a rule and prescribed procedure must be satisfied and there must be application of mind. Reference in that regard can be made to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State ofuttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 358; Hukam chandshyam Lal v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1976 Supreme court 789 and Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others, JT 1999 (7) SC 256. The purpose of such principle is so very obvious that the prescribed authority alone should exercise the power given to it. But for the prescribed authority, no other authority can assume such power merely for the reason that it considers it appropriate to do so and is vested with the some other power under the relevant rules/provisions. " ( 22 ) IN order to examine this aspect in some depth we may refer to certain hypothetical illustrations. A person who joined Army after satisfying all the prescribed standards and rigours of physical and medical tests, after having rendered service for number of years in Army, without suffering any illness and then is suddenly taken ill, normally such an illness would be attributable to or aggravated by military service unless in the opinion of the Medical Board there was clinical or investigative evidence to show to the contrary. It is possible that an individual may join the Army in a fit condition and despite normal medical examinations it was not possible to diagnose a disease at the time of his entry into service, however, such a disease surfaces after his joining the Army and upon investigations it could safely be stated that the disease was existing even prior to his joining the Army Service. It could also be found and medically demonstrated that the disease was 'constitutional' though it appeared or aggravated after the individual had joined the Army Service. ( 23 ) THE present case is one of the cases out of a bunch of writ petitions which were heard by us. When we were hearing the bunch of these writ petitions, a writ petition bearing W. P. (C) No. 3843/1994 titled as Ex. Hav. Maman Singh v. Union of India, decided on 20. 7. 2006, was also heard. In that case, the petitioner was suffering from 'hemsplegia (left)' and was invalidated from Army Service but the medical Board had conducted investigation upon the patient and it was found that the said disease was existing in his brain even prior to his joining the Army, however, it surfaced at a much subsequent stage. It was also recorded in the Medical board proceedings that further investigations were necessary and the same was advised to the patient by the Medical Board. In that case, further investigation and treatment was refused by the petitioner which, in fact, could have given the exact time of the onset of the disease and whether it surfaced or aggravated during the army Services. The said writ petition, on production of Records, was withdrawn by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. This would be an example where a person had entered into Army service with pre-existing disease and, thus, could not be entitled to the benefits of disability pension on the ground of attribution to military service. ( 24 ) STILL there could be other cases where opinion of the Medical Board is not supported by a reasoning or comments upon clinical examination and investigations conducted on the concerned person and, in fact on the face of it they may even appear to be perverse. ( 24 ) STILL there could be other cases where opinion of the Medical Board is not supported by a reasoning or comments upon clinical examination and investigations conducted on the concerned person and, in fact on the face of it they may even appear to be perverse. For example, a person, during the course of his service suffers a fracture while on duty and the same as a result of defective surgery results in disability to him, resulting in his invalidation out of service but with a declaration that it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. In some cases, onset of a disease may be the most relevant factor to be determined or answered by a medical Board while in others the emphasis may be on progression of the disease. Such a progression or onset is attributable to or aggravated by military service or not is again a matter on which the medical as well as the administrative authorities are expected to make record-based conclusions or sanctions. But once these two ingredients of Regulation 173 of the Pension and Regulations for the Army, 1961 are satisfied and the authorities sanction the pension, the PCDA has hardly any jurisdiction to sit over the finality of these views given by the competent authorities under these provisions. ( 25 ) AN officer or the persons other than the officers, under Regulations 48a and 173 could claim disability pension, which consists of Service element and disability element. Regulations 48,173 and 185 of the Pension Regulations provide for the complete scheme and entitlement for grant of such relief, which of course, is subject to change, again as per Rules and particularly in the cases where the Re-survey Medical Board finds that the disability no longer exists or has been reduced. The above principles of law are well-settled and well-explained with hardly any scope for variation. Undue reliance upon opinion of a Medical Board which patently violates the Regulations and Instructions of the Army and gives no historical, diagnostic details of the treatment and the basis for concluding non-attributability or non-aggravation to military service could result in travesty of justice and frustration of the very object of the relevant rules. ( 26 ) IN light of all these principles, now we would revert back to the facts of the present case. ( 26 ) IN light of all these principles, now we would revert back to the facts of the present case. The petitioner had joined military service in the year 1991 and he went through stringent physical and medical tests on periodical basis by the appropriate Medical Boards. He was never found to be sick or showed any sign or symptoms of any mental disease or disorder. He served the Army without any complaint and to the satisfaction of all concerned, right from the year 1991 till the year 1997, when forthe first time he showed symptoms of sickness and was finally invalidated from military service in the year 1999. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was invalidated from military service with 40% disability with the disease of'neurosis' (Neuropsychotic disorder ). However, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, the same was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The relevant part of AFMSF-16 reads as under:"summary and opinion of It. Col. RC Das, Classified Specialist (Psychiatry), Base hospital, Delhi Cantt-JO, Dated: 24 Sept. 99 25 years old cfn/eme with just 8 yrs of service is a case of Neurosis (300, v 67) in low med cat (CEE (Psy) 6/12 + 6/12 and EEE (Psy) 6/12 + 6/12 yrs. BEE (Psy) permit w. e. f. Jan. 98) since Mar. 95 and is now reported with a relapse. He was last renewed at MH Jabalpur in Feb. 99. Onset of his neurotic illness was in Jan-Feb 95, manifested with bouts of anxiety, noctural enwers, pre-mature ejaculation, erratic behaviour (touches wall while he is walking) and idiosyncatic belief. Initial evaluation by Sr. Adv. (Med.) ruled out contributory organic cause. After intensive treatment, with anxiolytics, thyroleptic, he had improved marginally and was observed in low med category. Since then, he is being periodically reviewed number of times and even after adequate treatment, he was found to be symptomatic. During present review, he presented with headache, weakness, innumerable somatic complaints, forgetfulness. He has some schizotypical personality traits. He was adequately treated with ECT (3), neuroleptics, thyroleptic and other supportive measures without any appreciable improvement. Indl. Has been treated and observed in low medical category for last five years, without any appreciable clinical condition. He still shows residual symptoms like anergia, forgetfulness, somatic concern. He is unfit to continue in further service. He has some schizotypical personality traits. He was adequately treated with ECT (3), neuroleptics, thyroleptic and other supportive measures without any appreciable improvement. Indl. Has been treated and observed in low medical category for last five years, without any appreciable clinical condition. He still shows residual symptoms like anergia, forgetfulness, somatic concern. He is unfit to continue in further service. Rec to be invalided out of service in med cat EEE (Psy ). Adv Tab trifluperazine 5 mg. HS under med supervision" ( 27 ) IT was recorded in the Medical Board proceedings that the findings are recommendatory in nature and are subject to approval/review/revision by the competent Authority. Along with the medical report, opinion of Lt. Col. R. C. Das, classified Specialist (Psychiatry) was also enclosed. In that report, it has been specifically recorded that onset of his neurotic illness was in Jan-Feb 1995. According to the Specialist, when initial evaluation of the patient was done by senior Medical Advisor, contributory organic cause was ruled out. Since then, he had been under the treatment of the authorities. Having found that the condition of the patient had worsened and disease had aggravated, on 8. 10. 1999 the patient was recommended to the Invaliding Board as a result of which he was invalidated out of service. ( 28 ) ANOTHER very pertinent aspect of the present case is that when the disease of the petitioner had manifested and he was examined by the Specialist on 19. 1. 1995, it was specifically recommended by the said Specialist as under: "unfit for HAA extreme cold regions" ( 29 ) DESPITE such recommendations of the Specialist Medical Officer, the petitioner was posted to high altitude, in fact, at the same place where he was posted prior to the onset of his disease. Thereafter he was posted to Rajasthan i. e. in extreme hot climatic conditions. Both these situations had apparently aggravated the disease of the petitioner which, as per the medical records, worsened from the year 1997 to the year 1999 and which necessitated invalidating out of the petitioner from the service in the year 1999. Thereafter he was posted to Rajasthan i. e. in extreme hot climatic conditions. Both these situations had apparently aggravated the disease of the petitioner which, as per the medical records, worsened from the year 1997 to the year 1999 and which necessitated invalidating out of the petitioner from the service in the year 1999. ( 30 ) IN light of the above medical records and opinion of the Specialist Doctors of the Army, the Medical Board has violated all norms and has acted in complete violation of and disrespect to the Rules and Regulations of the Army and has expressed nothing in the entire proceedings except noting a word 'yes' and/or no. ( 31 ) THE report does not contain any reason or expression of a medically oriented opinion to satisfy the requirements of the aforestated provisions of law. There is sufficient record before the Court in the form of opinion of the Classified specialist and Medical Specialist of the Medical Corps of Army, which can safely be relied upon by the Court for granting the requisite relief to the petitioner. In fact, the opinion of the Medical Board, as already noticed, is 'recommendatory (Refer to Rule 18 of the Pension Regulation) and are to be considered by the administrative authorities before issuing the sanction order. The authorities concerned, vide their letter dated May, 2000 had forwarded the case to CCDA (P) Allahabad with a clear indication that if there is any delay in finalisation of disability element, at least necessary PPO for service element should be issued to avoid any financial distress to the individual. This in no way weighed with the authorities concerned and the ccda (P) Allahabad rejected the entire pensionary claim of the petitioner without even observing as to what it had to say about the opinion of the Specialist which was part of the Medical Board proceedings. Once the claim of the petitioner was sanctioned and forwarded for disbursement to the pension authorities, they could not have rejected the same arbitrarily, without any basis and without subjecting the petitioner to an Appellate Medical Board as contemplated under the Rules. ( 32 ) IN view of the above circumstances, normally, the disability of the petitioner would be attributable to army service and in any case the same is aggravated by conditions of service. ( 32 ) IN view of the above circumstances, normally, the disability of the petitioner would be attributable to army service and in any case the same is aggravated by conditions of service. In this case, in fact there is contributory negligence of the respondent authorities in denying aggravation of the disease during the course of his normal service. ( 33 ) IN view of our detailed discussion above, we find merit in this writ petition. The same is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to consider and grant disability pension to the petitioner as he fully satisfies the ingredients of regulation 173, within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. ( 34 ) HOWEVER, in the facts, and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.