JUDGMENT : [Manish Mathur, J.] 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of punishment of severe reprimand awarded to petitioner vide order dated 24.03.2022. Relief with regard to quashing of Part II of order dated 06.05.2022 along with direction to opposite parties to promote petitioner from the post of Havildar to the next higher rank of Nb. Subedar along with consequential benefits has also been sought as is the additional opportunity for petitioner to appear in interview against his scheduled SSB interview on 08.06.2022. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite party has raised a preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this Court. It has been submitted that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007) specifically applies under Section 2 in so far as it relates to service matters. It is submitted that Section 3(o) defines service matters and clause (ii) indicates promotion as one of the service matters which is cognizable by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that exceptions to matters which are beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal are also indicated in Section 3(o) in which there is no exception indicated for taking cognizance of punishment of severe reprimand. It is also submitted that order of severe reprimand being ancillary to the prayer of promotion made by petitioner, therefore would be cognizable only by Tribunal and not by this Court at the first instance. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties submits that the inclusion clause of Section 3(o) of the Act of 2007 pertains only to inclusion of disputes pertaining to promotion and not with regard to punishment of severe reprimand. It is submitted that in similar matters, the Tribunal has declined to exercise its jurisdiction. 5. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it appears that matters cognizable before the Armed Forces Tribunal are indicated in Section 2 of the Act of 2007 which pertain to service matters of Armed Forces personnel including retired personnel, dependents, heirs and successors. It is submitted that in similar matters, the Tribunal has declined to exercise its jurisdiction. 5. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it appears that matters cognizable before the Armed Forces Tribunal are indicated in Section 2 of the Act of 2007 which pertain to service matters of Armed Forces personnel including retired personnel, dependents, heirs and successors. Service matters have been defined in Section 3(o) and clause (ii) thereof indicates disputes pertaining to promotion being within ambit of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. There are four exceptions indicated with regard to disputes which are not cognizable by the Tribunal; a perusal of which indicates that the punishment of severe reprimand which is the cause of petitioner not being promoted to a next higher post is not indicated as one of the exceptions in Section 3(o) of the Act of 2007. 6. It is also admitted between the parties that as yet petitioner has not approached the Tribunal for the prayers made In the present writ petition. 7. In view of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate that petitioner first invokes the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal in view of discussions made herein above. 8. Considering observations made herein above, the Petition as such is dismissed.