Judgment :- Gopala Gowda, J The correctness of the Learned Single Judge dated 14/10/2004 allowing W.P. No. 23147/1999 and directing to settle the pensionary benefits of deceased respondent, is questioned in this appeal urging various ground and praying to set aside the same. 2. The contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that the relief granted in the writ petition is on the basis of the decision of this Court in W.A. No. 2655/1995 where in the Apex Court decision in major Radhakrishnan’s case is relied upon, which is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision in UNION OF INDIA vs. HARJEET SINGH SANDHU AIR 2001 SC 1772 . Therefore, Learned Counsel for the appellants has requested this Court to allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon Section 20(1) of Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules. 3. Mr .M. Narayana Bhat, Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 justified the impugned order placing reliance upon the decision in the aforementioned writ appeal disposed of by this Court. He submits that the decision applied therein are decided on the basis of Section 19 of Army and therefore requested to dismiss this writ appeal. 4. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, we proceed to examine the case on merits. It is an undisputed fact that the order of dismissal of Ex. Subedar Harbhajan Singh from service is passed under Section 20(1) of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of Army Rules. The dismissed officer is no more. His wife and children are fighting this legal battle for service benefits. The case of dismissal is “services no longer required”, which is evident from Annexure-J dated 27-8-1990. But, in the order of dismissal dated 17-8-1990 produced as Annexure-J1, no reason is assigned. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- “IN exercise of the powers conferred by the Army Act Section 20(1) read in conjunction with Army Rule 17, I direct that JC81489 Sub HB Singh of GE(P) (1) East, Bangalore, attached to 152 AD Regt be dismissed from service”. In the show cause notice at Annexure-E, certain allegations are made against the dismissed officer. In the show cause notice at Annexure-E, certain allegations are made against the dismissed officer. It is thus clear that the dismissal order though not contain any reason, as per the communication at Annexure-J it passed not on the allegations contained in the show cause notice as the reason assigned is “services no longer required”. For all this reasons, the order dismissing the officer from service is vitiated and bad in law and the Learned Single Judge is justified in quashing the same. 5. it is seen that Section 19 of the Act empowers the Central Government to dismiss or remove from service any person. At the time Section 20 of the Act empowers the Chief of Army Staff to exercise the same power except in respect of an officer. Proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules read as under:- “Provided that if in the opinion of the officer competent to order the dismissal or removal, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions of this rule, he may after certifying to that effect, order the dismissal or removal without complying with the procedure set out in this rule. All cases of dismissal or removal under this rule where the prescribed procedure has not been complied with shall be reported to the Central Government.” From the above proviso it is clear that if it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to comply with the provisions of the rule, the Chief of Army Staff shall certify to that effect. In the instant case such certification is not made by him. From the contents of dismissal order at Annexure-J1, which is already extracted as above, it is clear that the intension of the second appellant was to pass order of ‘simplicitor’ and not dismissal order the same is also evident from Annexure-J wherein the words used are “services no longer required”. 6. The decision relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the appellants have no application to the fact situation. The wife and children of the dismissed officer cannot be deprived of the service benefits. Since the dismissed officer is no more, they are entitled to the service benefits. 7. The Learned Single Judge found that the show cause notice was served beyond three years, the limitation prescribed under Section 122(1) of the Act. The wife and children of the dismissed officer cannot be deprived of the service benefits. Since the dismissed officer is no more, they are entitled to the service benefits. 7. The Learned Single Judge found that the show cause notice was served beyond three years, the limitation prescribed under Section 122(1) of the Act. The Learned Single Judge rightly applied the decision rendered in W.P. No. 278/1995 which was subsequently followed in W.P. No. 278/1999 and granted relief to the writ petitioner. The reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court by the Learned Counsel for the appellant has no application to the fact situation of the present case. the same does not warrant interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. We direct the respondents to settle the service benefits to the legal representatives of dismissed officer without any delay.