JUDGMENT JANARDAN SAHAI, MEMBER (J.)-The applicant, Ashok Kumar was enrolled on 20.11.1997. He was issued a show cause notice dated 10.9.2004 signed by the Lt. Col. Vikram Singh, Commanding Officer in which there is a reference of seven offences said to have been committed by the applicant between May, 2001 and July, 2003 and the petitioner has been asked to show cause by 16.9.2004 why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 15.9.2004 and was thereafter discharged on 7.10.2004. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 3525 of 2005 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which has been transferred to the Tribunal in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. We have heard Sri R Chaubey, Counsel for the applicant and Col. RN. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. Shri R Chaubey, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted the it show cause has been signed by Commanding Officer, Lt. Col Vikram Singh a'1d not by Sub-Area Commander or the Brig. Commander as provided under Rule 13 (3) III (v). It is also submitted that discharge of the applicant was not sanctioned by the Sub-Area Commander/Brigadier Commander. In view of this issue we had directed the respondents to produce the original record relating to the discharge of the applicant. The record has been produced by the respondents before us and has been seen by Shri R Chaubey, learned Counsel for the applicant. The file indicates that the minutes sheet relating to the discharge of the petitioner was initiated on 1.9.2004 and approval of issuance of show cause notice was given by the G.O.C. on 7.9.2004 and thereafter the show cause notice was issued on 10.9.2004. The discharge of the applicant was sanctioned by the G.O.C. on 25.9.2004 and he was discharged on 7.10.2004. Thus this contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the issuance of the show cause and sanction of the discharge is not the act of the competent authority is not borne out from the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant then submitted that it was necessary for the G.O.C./Sub Area Brigade Commander to have singed the show cause notice himself and failure to do so would vitiate the notice. In our opinion the contention does not have any merit. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant then submitted that it was necessary for the G.O.C./Sub Area Brigade Commander to have singed the show cause notice himself and failure to do so would vitiate the notice. In our opinion the contention does not have any merit. The issuance of show cause notice has been sanctioned by the competent authority and the mere fact that the show cause notice was issued under the signature of the Commanding Officer would not vitiate the show cause notice. The rule confers the decision making power upon the Sub Area Commander/Brigadier Commander and if that authority or any higher authority vide Rule 13 (2) Army Rules has taken the decision, it is sufficient compliance. No prejudice has been cause to the petitioner. 4. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the only five days time was granted to the applicant to show cause which was wholly insufficient. The reply of the applicant has been filed as Annexure C.A.-3 to the counter-affidavit. In this reply dated 15.9.2004, the applicant has admitted his mistake and attributed the cause to family problems. Moreover, we also find that the applicant was required to give his reply by 16.9.2004 whereas he himself replied on 15.9.2004 even before expiry of the time granted in the show cause. In the circumstances, it does not appear that the applicant has in any way been prejudiced for any shortage of time. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that no preliminary enquiry has been held and that the report of the preliminary enquiry has not been annexed with the show cause notice. The original record reveals that a preliminary enquiry was held and a report was also submitted. The learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to refer to any provision whereunder the report of. the preliminary enquiry was required to be annexed to the show cause notice. The original record reveals that a preliminary enquiry was held and a report was also submitted. The learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to refer to any provision whereunder the report of. the preliminary enquiry was required to be annexed to the show cause notice. There is another aspect of the matter to which our attention was drawn by Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents that the applicant had committed seven offences within a short span of two years and had repeatedly overstayed leave and was also once punished for intoxication and that this record of the applicant itself indicates that he was a habitual offender and in the circumstances, there was sufficient material to justify the discharge and it was not mandatory on the part of the respondents to hold a preliminary enquiry. 6. Shri R. Chaubey, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Division Bench, Delhi High Court in Surendra Singh Sihag v. Union of India1 2003 (1) SCT 697. in which the discharge was quashed on the ground that the procedure under the policy letter dated 28.12.1988 which envisages a preliminary enquiry was not followed. On the other hand, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel relied upon the decision of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Singh v. Union of India in the C.W.P. No. 3109 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007 in which it has been held that if on the facts on record i.e., the red ink entries it can be concluded that the officer is undesirable, no preliminary enquiry is required to be carried out. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Surendra Singh Sihag v. Union of India 1 2003 (1) SCT 697. was considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was observed that although Surinder Singh Sihag has dealt with the policy dated 28.12.1988 but what kind of preliminary enquiry can be envisaged in respect of red ink entries in the series records of the official has not been examined. The learned Judges then observed: "In our opinion, the preliminary enquiry which is required to be carried out in terms of the instructions circulated vide circular dated 28.12.1988 is in respect of the facts which require to be determined to return a finding that the official is undesirable. The learned Judges then observed: "In our opinion, the preliminary enquiry which is required to be carried out in terms of the instructions circulated vide circular dated 28.12.1988 is in respect of the facts which require to be determined to return a finding that the official is undesirable. If on the facts on record i.e., the red ink entries, it can be concluded that the officer is undesirable, no preliminary enquiry is required to be carried out. Any mitigating circumstance so as to not to discharge the official, can be pointed out by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. Such procedure will meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. " . 7. In our opinion too the decision in Surinder Singh Sihag (supra) cannot be applied as a strait jacket formula for quashing an order of discharge in every case where a preliminary enquiry has not been held. Where the red ink entries are old and may not serve a sound basis for drawing a conclusion that retention of the soldier is undesirable and the present performance and conduct of the soldier may be required to be examined a preliminary enquiry must be held. But in cases where the red ink entries are for serious lapses and are recent and thus reflect upon the present work and performance of the soldier and indicate that he is habitual offender the discharge would not be invalid only on the ground that a preliminary inquiry was not held. In Surendra Singh Sihag's case the learned Judges had proceeded on the footing that an order of discharge casts a stigma as that position, it appears from the observations made in the judgment was not disputed before them. The nature of discharge has however been considered by the Apex Court in the context of the Air Force Act and Rules in Union of India and others v. Corporal A.K. Bakshi and another.2 (1996) 3 SCC 65 . It was held 'this action for his discharge is not by way of punishment for the misconducts for which he has already been punished. The basic idea underlying the policy for dis. charge is that recurring nature of punishments for misconduct imposed on an airman renders him unsuitable for further retention in the Air Force. Suitability for the retention in the Air Force has to determined on the basis of record of service. The basic idea underlying the policy for dis. charge is that recurring nature of punishments for misconduct imposed on an airman renders him unsuitable for further retention in the Air Force. Suitability for the retention in the Air Force has to determined on the basis of record of service. The punishments that have been imposed earlier being part of the record of service have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether such person is suitable for retention in the Air Force. Note to the policy letter dated 28.12.1988 itself provides the manner in which discharge consequent to red ink entries is to be considered. The said Note 2 reads as under: "Discharge from service consequent to four red ink entries is not a mandatory or legal requirements. In such case Commanding Officer must consider the nature of offences for which case red ink entry has been awarded and not to harsh with the individuals, especially when they are about to complete the pensionable service due consideration should be given to the long service hard stations and difficult living conditions that the OR has been exposed to during his service, and the discharge should be ordered only when it is absolutely necessary in the interest of service. Such discharge should be approved by the next higher commander." The consideration mentioned in the note can be done on the basis of the service record of the soldier and from his reply to the show cause notice. In cases where the opinion that the retention of a solider is not desirable is to be formed on the basis of complaints and material which requires investigation, a preliminary enquiry must be held. In every case the issuance of the show cause notice envisaged in Rule 13 (3) III (v) of the Army Rules is however essential before ordering discharge. 8. In our view, the red ink entries in this case are sufficiently indicative' that the applicant is a habitual offender. The relevant portion of the show cause notice is being quoted as under: "1. On perusal of your records of army service, it has been observed that during the span of your army service, you have committed the following offences under the Army Act, 1950, for which the punishments were awarded to you as mentioned against each of offence as under : Sr. On perusal of your records of army service, it has been observed that during the span of your army service, you have committed the following offences under the Army Act, 1950, for which the punishments were awarded to you as mentioned against each of offence as under : Sr. Date of AA sec Punishment Remarks No. Offence Awarded (a) 4 May 2001 39 (b) 14 day RI. Without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him. (b) 18 June 2002 39 (a) 7 days pay Absenting himself without fine leave (c) 20 August 39 (b) 7 days RI. Without sufficient cause 2002 overstaying leave (d) 16 October 48 7 days RI. Intoxication 2002 (e) 28 October 63 7 days RI. An act prejudicial to good or 2002 der and mil discipline (f) 30th January 39 (b) 7 days pay Without sufficient cause 2003 fine overstaying leave granted to him (g) 8 July 2003 39 (a) 28 days RI. Absenting himself without leave And 14 days detention in mil custody" 9. In our opinion that material mentioned in the show cause notice was sufficient for the competent authority to draw a conclusion that the applicant was undesirable for retention in service. The applicant had himself admitted his mistake in the reply to the show cause notice. No other contention has been raised by the Counsel for the applicant. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the discharge. The petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.