ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.V.V. Charya for learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is wife of Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy (27601), AE (L). This writ petition is filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the Air Chief Marshal in Air HQ/C 23401/63/Discip, dated 04.02.2020 in exercise of powers vested under Rule 16 (4) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 calling upon Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy to submit explanation on various allegations levelled therein and that why he should not be dismissed or removed from service. 3.1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner already a decision was taken by the competent authority to dismiss or remove the Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy from service and the show cause notice is only an empty formality. Therefore, the Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy need not be compelled to respond to the show cause notice and therefore nothing remains for the officer to submit explanation. 3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy was implicated in a false criminal case and he is now in imprisonment. On the ground that he was arrested and detained in custody, he was placed under suspension. As the Wing Commander is in imprisonment, it is not possible for him to submit effective explanation to the show cause notice. 3.3 In support of his contention that post-decisional hearing to impose major punishment is ex-facie illegal, learned counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in H.L. Trehan and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 1989 (1) SLR 7 . 3.4. Learned counsel further submits that though ordinarily the affected officer should avail the legal remedy on his own, since he is detained in custody, it is not possible for him to prosecute legal remedy and therefore this writ petition is filed by the wife of Wing Commander seeking redressal for the Wing Commander and therefore the writ petition is maintainable. 3.5. He further submits that though an aggrieved officer of Air Force has to avail remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, there is no presiding officer in Secunderabad. Thus, petitioner has no effective remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.5. He further submits that though an aggrieved officer of Air Force has to avail remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, there is no presiding officer in Secunderabad. Thus, petitioner has no effective remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no fetters are imposed on the writ Court in entertaining the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting said remedy and having regard to the extraordinary circumstances in this case, this writ petition is maintainable. 4.1. In response, Sri. K.V.V. Charya, learned counsel representing learned Assistant Solicitor General raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition. According to learned counsel, petitioner has effective remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Bench in Chennai and Principal Bench in New Delhi are functioning. Cases from Hyderabad are also filed before the Principal Bench and matters are being taken up. 4.2. He submits that the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable. Wife of the petitioner has no locus-standi to agitate the service grievance of an Air Force Officer. He would submit that even if the writ petition can be instituted, without subjecting the officer to avail the remedy under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, the writ has to be instituted by the aggrieved officer, but not by the wife. 4.3. He further submits that Rule 16 (4) of the Rules vests power in the Chief of Air Staff to dispense with conducting court marshal for the reasons recorded and call upon the delinquent officer to show cause why punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed. By referring to various clauses in Rule 16 of the Rules, he submits that ultimately the Chief of Air Staff has to submit report to the Government of India and it is for the Government of India to take a decision. He submits that the Rule enables the Chief of Air Staff to suggest any other punishment other than dismissal or removal from service and it is for the Government of India to consider the proposals submitted by the Chief of Air Staff. Therefore, it cannot be said that already a decision was made and post-decisional exercise is undertaken. He submits that the Rule enables the Chief of Air Staff to suggest any other punishment other than dismissal or removal from service and it is for the Government of India to consider the proposals submitted by the Chief of Air Staff. Therefore, it cannot be said that already a decision was made and post-decisional exercise is undertaken. It is premature for the petitioner to apprehend that the only punishment that would be imposed is dismissal from service. Further, when the Rule is not under challenge, the writ is not maintainable at the stage of show cause notice. 5. I have carefully considered the respective submissions. The matter is at the stage of show cause notice. Therefore, at this stage, the Court is not going into merits of the allegations levelled and the decision that may be taken after the explanation, if any, offered by the officer, is considered. 6. There is force in the submission of learned standing counsel Sri. K.V.V. Charya that the writ petition in the present form filed by wife of Wing Commander is not maintainable agitating the service grievance. Service dispute is a grievance in personam. Further, even if it is true that officer cannot prosecute legal remedy as he is lodged in jail, as next friend, at the most, she could have deposed on his behalf, but cannot file writ petition in her name. Thus, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. However, to test the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a post-decisional hearing and to entertain the writ petition filed by wife of the officer, the relevant provision governing the issue is also considered. Rule 16 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 deals with “Dismissal or removal of officers for misconduct.” Ordinarily, court-marshal has to be held drawing up charges alleging misconduct and only if findings are recorded against the officer, punishment of dismissal or removal from service can be imposed. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 16 carves out exception to normal procedure and vests extraordinary power in the Chief of Air Staff to dispense with placing the petitioner for trial before the court-martial and straight away issue notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed or removed from service by assigning reasons for dispensing with court-martial and supplying all the relevant documents. Once a show cause notice is issued by supplying all the relevant documents, the concerned officer should submit his explanation and oppose the action proposed dispensing with conducting court-martial and to dismiss or remove him from service. On considering such explanation, if any filed, if the Chief of Air Staff is not satisfied with the explanation, he should submit a report to the Central Government together with his recommendations on punishment that can be imposed. He can also recommend to impose lesser punishment though show cause notice envisaged dismissal/removal. On consideration of the same, the Central Government, may pass orders imposing punishment of dismissal or removal from service or a lesser punishment. It may even exonerate the officer. 8. Having regard to the scheme of Rule 16 of the Rules, it cannot be said that the show cause notice and exercise thereon amounts to post-decisional hearing warranting interference by this Court on that ground. Further, Rule 16 (4) of the Rules is not under challenge. In terms thereof, the competence of the Chief of Air Staff is not in dispute. He derives power from the statutory scheme to dispense with court-marshal and issue show cause notice. Having regard to the scheme of Rule 16 of the Rules, as noticed above, it cannot be assumed that the Chief of Air Staff would act with a closed mind, would not appreciate the objections of the petitioner and would only go with the provisional decision taken by him. Further, the Chief of Air Staff is not the decision making authority. He is vested with power only to issue show cause notice, consider the explanation offered in response to the show cause notice and submit his report to the Central Government. Further, the Rule also vests discretion in the Chief of Air Staff to suggest to Central Government a lesser punishment than dismissal/removal. The power to take decision ultimately vests in the Central Government. Having regard to statutory scheme, the scope of consideration is wide. Thus, the show cause notice is not vitiated. 9. Armed Forces Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate all disputes of officers working in Air Force. The power to take decision ultimately vests in the Central Government. Having regard to statutory scheme, the scope of consideration is wide. Thus, the show cause notice is not vitiated. 9. Armed Forces Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate all disputes of officers working in Air Force. This is not a matter of grave urgency to dispense with the remedy available to an officer under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunals Act and straight away institute a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, not by aggrieved officer. By this process statutory redressal mechanism cannot be aborted. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 , the Armed Forces Tribunal is the Court of first instance to adjudicate service disputes of officers working in Indian Air Force and aggrieved party has to exhaust the remedy under the Act before coming to the High Court. No endeavour is made by petitioner to knock the doors of the Armed Forces Tribunal to redress the grievance before rushing to this Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the Wing Commander to raise all pleas available in law in response to the show cause notice or to work out remedies as available in law. It is open to him to persuade the competent authority to grant extension of time, if so advised. It is for the competent authority to consider such request. It is needless to observe that the competent authority would act with all fairness and consider the explanation offered, if any, with open mind before submitting the report to the Government of India. It is also made clear that there is no expression of opinion on any issue affecting Wing Commander G.R.S. Reddy and his array of pleas are preserved. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.