ORDER : 1. By an order dated 21 September 1993, the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service in exercise of the power conferred by Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1969. 2. A Court of Inquiry was convened to inquire into the allegations made by a colleague Flight Lieutenant of the petitioner in an application dated 26 June 1991 which was forwarded to the Air Headquarters. In the course of the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry, it emerged that the petitioner had engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor daughter of a colleague in the Air Force. The victim deposed during the Court of Inquiry and was cross-examined by the petitioner. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have perused the deposition of the victim and the cross-examination. 4. After the Report of the Court of Inquiry, a conscious decision was taken to the effect that it was not practicable to hold a General Court Martial under Section 110 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 24 of the Air Force Rules 1969. This was particularly in view of the vulnerability of the minor victim. 5. Instead a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 19 read with Rule 16 to which he submitted his reply. The Chief of the Air Staff, on perusing the record including the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry, was of the view that the petitioner may be compulsorily retired. 6. The Central Government, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sub-Rules (7) and (8) of Rule 16 duly considered the recommendation of the Chief of Air Staff and all relevant material before coming to the conclusion that the case warranted the dismissal of the petitioner from service. 7. During the course of the hearing, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General has placed the relevant file containing the recommendation of the Chief of Air Staff as well as the ultimate decision of the Central Government. 8. We are not inclined to re-inquire into the findings of fact which have been arrived at by the Court of Inquiry particularly since the Armed Forces Tribunal has carefully evaluated all the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. 8. We are not inclined to re-inquire into the findings of fact which have been arrived at by the Court of Inquiry particularly since the Armed Forces Tribunal has carefully evaluated all the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had, however, submitted that under Rule 16(8) of the Air Force Rules, 1969, the Central Government ought to have borne in mind the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff for compulsory retirement. Moreover, it was urged that the Central Government could have given an option to the petitioner to resign from service instead of removing him. Sub-Rule (7) and (8) of Rule 16 provide as follows:- "(7) The Central Government, after considering the reports against the officer and his defence, if any, and the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff, dismiss or remove the officer from service. (8) In this rule and in rule 17 of the Chief of the Air Staff while submitting a case to the Central Government may recommend that instead of removing an officer from service, he may be compulsorily retired or that he should be called upon to resign his commission, and the Central Government in passing orders may instead of removing an officer from service, compulsorily retire him or give the officer an option to submit his resignation, and if he refuses to do so, remove him from the service." 10. In order to establish that as a matter of fact, the recommendation of the Chief of Air Staff was duly borne in mind by the Central Government, the learned Additional Solicitor General has placed the entire file before the Court, which we have noted above. 11. There is no manner of doubt that the Central Government had duly taken note of the recommendations of the Chief of Air Staff before deciding upon the eventual action which was taken against the petitioner. The recommendation made by the Chief of Air Staff is not binding and the Central Government was within its jurisdiction in taking the ultimate decision which it did in the facts and circumstances of the case. The action taken is not unlawful or arbitrary. 12. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the Special Leave Petition. 13. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.