JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment & order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7105/2016, the appellant/original petitioner has filed this appeal. 2. Heard Ms. M. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 8. 3. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal. The appellant/original petitioner is working in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) under Border Roads Organization under the Ministry of BRTF. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that as employee of General Reserve Engineer Force, the appellant/original petitioner expected Bhutan Compensatory Allowance (BCA) posting as he has fulfilled requisite conditions of 5(five) years Good ACRs and more than 26 months compulsory service in High Altitude. However, by the impugned order dated 02.09.2016, the appellant/original petitioner was issued with an order cancelling the said order of transfer of Bhutan Compensatory Allowance on the ground of punishment of “severe reprimand” imposed upon as contemplated under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950. 4. It was basically the case of the appellant/original petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the impugned order dated 02.09.2016 is bad and illegal and at no point of time the appellant/original petitioner was served with the order of reprimand. It was, therefore, submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the transfer order and not giving benefit of Bhutan Compensatory Allowance is erroneous. The appellant/original petitioner also disputed the stand of the respondent authorities to the effect that the appellant/ original petitioner was served with the order of reprimand. 5. It appears from the record of the appeal that the learned Single Judge also got the same verified by arraying the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, as party respondent No.9 in the writ petition. The expert opinion in form of a report of FSL was placed on record of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which clearly revealed that the order of reprimand was served upon the appellant/original petitioner and the same was acknowledged by the appellant by putting his own signature. The learned Single Judge in totality of the facts was pleased to dismiss the petition and hence this appeal. 6. Ms. The learned Single Judge in totality of the facts was pleased to dismiss the petition and hence this appeal. 6. Ms. M. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/original petitioner reiterated the contentions, which were raised before the learned Single Judge and contended that the appellant has been harassed only because of the fact that he belongs to a particular caste. It was also contended by Ms. M. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/original petitioner that the appellant/original petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of Bhutan Compensatory Allowance and even though he fulfils all the requisites and his 5(five) years ACRs are without any adverse or negative remarks, the appellant/original petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of the same. On the aforesaid ground, Ms. M. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/original petitioner contended that the appeal requires consideration and the impugned judgment & order deserved to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 has supported the impugned judgment & order and has submitted that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 8. No other or further submissions, contentions or grounds have been raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 9. Upon considering the contentions raised and on perusal of the impugned judgment & order, it clearly transpires that an order of penalty of severe reprimand was passed under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, which was duly communicated to the appellant/original petitioner. In fact the learned Single Judge was pleased to call for the original record and proceedings and it was found that the order of penalty was duly acknowledged by the appellant/ original petitioner himself. It also further transpires that as the signature was disputed, the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam was made a party respondent to the writ petition and as per the expert opinion, the disputed signature dated 19.02.2020 was found to be of the appellant/original petitioner himself. It is also an admitted position that the appellant/original petitioner has not challenged the order of reprimand. Only because on 02.09.2016, the order of Bhutan Compensatory Allowance was passed, the authorities are within its jurisdiction and power to consider the fact that the appellant/original petitioner suffers from an order of severe reprimand and has, therefore, rightly passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2016. Only because on 02.09.2016, the order of Bhutan Compensatory Allowance was passed, the authorities are within its jurisdiction and power to consider the fact that the appellant/original petitioner suffers from an order of severe reprimand and has, therefore, rightly passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2016. The learned Single Judge, considering the aforesaid factual matrix, has observed thus:- “11. The principal ground of challenge, as pleaded in the writ petition, appears to be that, at no point of time, was any order of imposition of penalty intimated to the petitioner. Such contention has not only been disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition by the contesting respondents, the records also reveal that the petitioner had acknowledged the penalty in question. However, when such acknowledgement was also disputed by the petitioner, further step was taken by this Court by giving an opportunity to the respondents to substantiate their contentions regarding authenticity of the signature of the petitioner which had been duly done in the form of an expert opinion dated 19.02.2020 from the Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam, which was impleaded as party respondent no.9 in the present proceeding. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no grounds for interference with the order dated 02.09.2016 has been made out and, accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. It is, however, observed that if the Rules permit for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner after a particular length of time, he may be considered for BCA posting in accordance with law.” 10. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Even the contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant/ original petitioner as regards caste is also without any factual background or any basis. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the order impugned is bad or illegal or malafide or based on any other extraneous consideration. In a disciplined force, like General Reserve Engineer Force, the rules are to be strictly adhered to. 11. In totality of facts, no interference is called for. The appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.