ORDER RAJIVE BHALLA, J. 1. By way of the present criminal writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the findings, (Annexure P-2), returned by the Summary Court Martial, as also the sentence, imposed upon him, vide Annexure P-3. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army in March, 1988. He overstayed his casual leave by four days from 16.12.1996 to 19.12.1996. He again absented himself, without leave, from the unit lines w.e.f 1.2.1997 at 1900 hours and rejoined on 9.2.1997 at 2100 hours. The petitioner was charged, under Section 39(b) and 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short herein after referred to as “the Act”), before a Summary Court Martial. The petitioner admitted to his guilt and prayed that he should be allowed to serve in the Army. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the Summary Court Martial, vide order dated 13.3.1997, (Annexure P-3) sentenced the petitioner to. RI for two months, as also dismissal from service. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Summary Court Martial is void, being violative of the provisions of Section 106 of the Act, as any person, if found absent for more than 30 days, has to be brought before a court of inquiry. In the present case, no court of inquiry was conducted. It is further argued that as per Army Order 37/83, read with Army Regulation para 462, a person brought before a Court Martial, is required to be medically examined, prior to his appearance, before the Court Martial. As no medical examination was conducted, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. It is further argued that the Summary Court Martial has not recorded any verdict or finding and has simply recorded the sentence, imposed upon the petitioner, thus, leading to a gross violation of the Act and the Rules. 6. Another argument, pressed into service, by counsel for the petitioner, is that the order, passed in the appeal, filed by the petitioner, is non speaking. The pleas, raised by petitioner, have not been discussed and, therefore, the said order is illegal and void. 7. 6. Another argument, pressed into service, by counsel for the petitioner, is that the order, passed in the appeal, filed by the petitioner, is non speaking. The pleas, raised by petitioner, have not been discussed and, therefore, the said order is illegal and void. 7. It is further argued that the punishment, meted out to the petitioner, is grossly disproportionate to the degree and nature of the offence and is, therefore, liable to be set aside or reduced. 8. The last argument, addressed by counsel for the petitioner, is that as the petitioner was psychologically disturbed, he absented himself and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Summary Court Martial or the appellate authority. 9. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the points, urged by counsel for the petitioner, namely, the non holding of a court of inquiry, and the failure of the Court Martial to record a verdict, have not been pleaded in the petition. As no such grievances have been raised by the petitioner, the said contentions do not merit consideration. 10. It is further argued that as averred in paragraph 11 of the written statement, the petitioner was medically examined, before the start of the trial and certified by the medical authorities as fit in all respects to undergo trial. The contention of counsel for the petitioner, which has not been denied by filing a replication, does not merit acceptance. In so far as, the order, passed by the appellate authority, it is contended that the appellate authority is not required to pass a speaking order. The petitioner’s pleas were examined in detail, found baseless and, therefore, rejected. 11. It is further argued that apart from the fact that as the petitioner was charged and punished for over-staying his casual leave and absenting himself, without leave, from unit lines, the punishment, imposed is, in no manner, disproportionate to the misconduct. The petitioner was a member of the Armed forces, a disciplined force, and, therefore, his absence from the unit, without leave, and over-staying his casual leave, can, in no manner, be stated to be an offence insufficient to attract the punishment imposed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The petitioner was a member of the Armed forces, a disciplined force, and, therefore, his absence from the unit, without leave, and over-staying his casual leave, can, in no manner, be stated to be an offence insufficient to attract the punishment imposed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. In so far as the arguments, addressed by counsel for the petitioner, as regards the failure of the respondents to hold a court of inquiry, and the failure of the Court Martial to record a verdict, a perusal of the pleadings reveal that no such grievance has been raised. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise an argument for the first time without any pleadings in support thereof. 14. The next argument, addressed by counsel for the petitioner, that the order, passed in appeal, is non speaking and, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice, does not merit acceptance. There is no requirement, under the Act, to pass a speaking order, while disposing of an appeal. Mere absence of reasons, while declining relief in appeal, does not render the order illegal or void. Even otherwise, the record does not indicate any infirmity, illegality or prejudice caused to the petitioner, during the Summary Court Martial. 14. Another argument, pressed into service, by counsel for the petitioner, is that as the petitioner was psychologically disturbed and absented himself on that account, has not been taken into consideration by the Summary Court Martial or the appellate authority. The aforementioned fact is factually incorrect and an argument coined as a plea of desperation. A perusal of the petitioner’s statement, prior to the Summary Court Martial, reveals that no such plea was raised or pressed. Even otherwise, a perusal of paragraph 7 of the written statement reveals that prior to the Summary Court Martial, the petitioner was subjected to a thorough medical examination and was certified medically fit in all respects to face the trial. 15. The last argument addressed that the punishment meted out is grossly disproportionate to the offence alleged. The aforementioned argument lacks merits. The petitioner was serving in the Indian Army, a disciplined force. Discipline is the corner stone, upon which the efficiency and the ability of an organization to perform its duty rests. 15. The last argument addressed that the punishment meted out is grossly disproportionate to the offence alleged. The aforementioned argument lacks merits. The petitioner was serving in the Indian Army, a disciplined force. Discipline is the corner stone, upon which the efficiency and the ability of an organization to perform its duty rests. In my considered opinion, the absence from duty, without leave, abandoning unit lines without leave, are offences so serious as to warrant the punishment imposed. The punishment of dismissal from service, in my considered opinion, is in no manner, disproportionate to the offence, committed by the petitioner. The punishment is neither perverse nor irrational and, therefore, does not merit interference. No errors or jurisdiction or violation of statutory provisions have been pointed out in the impugned orders. 16. In view of what has been stated above, as the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial do not suffer from any error of fact, and law; the punishment imposed, in the circumstances of the present case, is not disproportionate to the offence committed. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.