JUDGMENT : (Sanjeev Kumar, J.) 1. This intra Court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against a judgment dated 25th March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in a writ petition SWP No.2129/2001 titled Ex-Havaldar Angrej Singh v. Union of India and others, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter “writ petitioner”) has been allowed and the order of his discharge from the Service passed by the appellants has been quashed. There is a further direction by the Writ Court to treat the writ petitioner in service for such period as would be sufficient to entitle him for pensionary and retiral benefits. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, we deem it appropriate to take notice of few material facts. 3. Writ petitioner came to be enrolled in Indian Army as Sepoy on 05.09.1972. In the year 1979, when he was availing 60 days annual leave, the writ petitioner crossed over to Pakistan alongwith two civilians of his village, namely, Rattan Singh and Mohinder Singh and accepted Rs.100/- as gratification/remuneration from Pakistanis. This fact of his crossing over to Pakistan was not disclosed by the writ petitioner to anyone in the Army on rejoining from annual leave. However, it was later revealed to the Army Authorities by the Intelligence Agencies. 4. Since the writ petitioner had crossed over to Pakistan and had not even disclosed the said fact to the Army Authorities, he was awarded “severe reprimand” under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 [“the Army Act”]. 5. It seems that the Government of India as also the Army Authorities had been receiving complaints against some army men, who were crossing over to Pakistan and working against the interests of the nation and, as such, under the instructions of Government of India, such elements in the Army were identified and thrown out from service. It also came to the notice of the Army Authorities that the writ petitioner was also one such element, who was involved in alleged subversive activities detrimental not only to military discipline but also to the security of the Nation. 6. Accordingly, the Army Authorities invoked Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 [“the Army Rules”] and put the writ petitioner on show cause notice on 07.06.1986. 6. Accordingly, the Army Authorities invoked Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954 [“the Army Rules”] and put the writ petitioner on show cause notice on 07.06.1986. The show cause notice was replied by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner virtually accepted the charge but requested that he may be permitted to continue for some more time so that he completes qualifying service tenure of 15 years so as to become entitled to pension. The Competent Authority did not accept the request of the writ petitioner and, accordingly, discharged him from the Service on 11.7.1986. At the time of his discharge, the writ petitioner was having total 14 years, 2 months and 07 day’s service in the Army and, therefore, was held not entitled to any pension. However, all other due retiral benefits like AFPP Fund Balance, Credit Balance and Service Gratuity etc were released in his favour. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition SWP No.2129/2001, which was contested by the Army Authorities. The sole plea which was taken by the writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that he having been reprimanded for the same offence could not have been tried again and inflicted the punishment of discharge from service. Though, the Writ Court has not said it in so many words but it clearly comes out from a reading of the judgment that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed on the ground that the writ petitioner could not have been subjected to two punishments for the same offence. It is this judgment of the Writ Court dated 25.03.2009, which is called in question before us in this appeal. 8. Mr. R.S.Jamwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Army Authorities vehemently contends that the Writ Court has not appreciated that the nature of power exercised by the Army Authorities for awarding punishment of ‘severe reprimand’ for commission of offence under Section 63 of the Act and the power exercised subsequently under Rule 13(3) item III(v) of the Rules discharging the writ petitioner from service were two different powers; one pertains to inflicting of punishment for an offence committed and the other is an administrative power to discharge a member of the service on various grounds including that a person is not fit to be retained in service. He, therefore, argues that the plea of double jeopardy, as was invoked by the writ petitioner before the Writ Court, was not available. He submits that in the instant case, the writ petitioner was not subjected to trial for an offence twice or that he was punished twice for the same offence. 9. Per contra, Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, places strong reliance on Section 121 of the Act and submits that if a person subject to the Army Act has been convicted or acquitted for an offence by a Court Martial or by a Criminal Court or has been dealt with under any of the Sections 80, 83, 84 and 85, he shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence by a Court Martial or dealt with under the said Section. He argues that since the writ petitioner had been dealt with under Section 80 of the Act and had been convicted for an offence under Section 63 of the Act, as such, could not have been discharged from service by invoking so called administrative powers by the Army Authorities. He, therefore, submits that awarding two punishments for the same act tantamounts to subjecting the writ petitioner to double jeopardy which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Writ Court is not sustainable in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 11. The facts in the instant case are not in dispute. The allegation that the writ petitioner had crossed over to Pakistan and accepted an illegal gratification from Pakistanis was not refuted by the writ petitioner. It is true that at the relevant point of time i.e. between 06.10.1979 to 04.12.1979 the writ petitioner was in his village availing annual leave. While on leave, he along with two other civilians of his village crossed over to Pakistan. This fact came to the knowledge of the Army Authorities through Intelligence Agencies. It is true that at the relevant point of time i.e. between 06.10.1979 to 04.12.1979 the writ petitioner was in his village availing annual leave. While on leave, he along with two other civilians of his village crossed over to Pakistan. This fact came to the knowledge of the Army Authorities through Intelligence Agencies. It seems that initially the Authorities did not take this act of the writ petitioner crossing over to Pakistan illegally, along with two civilians while on leave, seriously and, accordingly, let him off with a punishment of “severe reprimand” on the charge of violation of good order and discipline punishable under Section 63 of the Act. The procedure adopted by the Army Authorities was, as laid down in Section 80 of the Act. 12. Before we proceed further, we deem it just and proper to set out Sections 63 and 80 of the Act herein below:- “63. Violation of good order and discipline - Any person subject to this Act who is guilty of any act or omission which, though not specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and military discipline shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven year or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.” …………………………………. ………………………………….. 80. ………………………………….. 80. Punishments of person other than officers, junior commissioned officers and warrant officers.- Subject to the provisions of section 81, a commanding officer or such other officer as is, with the consent of the Central Government specified by the Chief of the Army Staff, may, in the prescribed manner proceed against a person subject to this Act otherwise than an officer, junior commissioned officer or warrant officer who is charged with an offence under this Act and award such person, to the prescribed, one or more of the following punishments, that is to say,- (a) imprisonment in military custody up to twenty-eight days; (b) detention up to twenty-eight days; (c) confinement to the lines up to twenty-eight days; (d) extra guards or duties; (e) deprivation of a position of the nature of an appointment or of corps or working pay, and in the case of non-commissioned officers, also deprivation of acting rank or reduction to a lower grade of pay; (f) forfeiture of good service and good conduct pay; (g) severe reprimand or reprimand; (h) fine up to fourteen day’s pay in any one month; (i) penal deductions under clause (g) of sections 91.” 13. From a reading of Section 80 of the Army Act along with Rule 22 of the Army Rules, it becomes abundantly clear that the Commanding Officer, if after complying with Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Army Rules, is of the opinion that the charge ought to be proceeded with, he shall proceed to dispose of the case under Section 80 of the Act in accordance with the manner and Form in Appendix III. 14. From the record, it comes out that the Commanding Officer after having heard the writ petitioner on the charge under Section 63 of the Army Act was of the opinion that the charge ought to be proceeded with and, accordingly, disposed of the case under Section 80 of the Act. Section 80 of the Act, reproduced herein above, enumerates nine types of different punishments that can be awarded, which, inter alia, include the punishment of “severe reprimand or reprimand”. As is provided under Rule 22(3)(a) of the Army Rules, the manner of disposing of the case under Section 80 of the Act is prescribed in Appendix III. 15. Section 80 of the Act, reproduced herein above, enumerates nine types of different punishments that can be awarded, which, inter alia, include the punishment of “severe reprimand or reprimand”. As is provided under Rule 22(3)(a) of the Army Rules, the manner of disposing of the case under Section 80 of the Act is prescribed in Appendix III. 15. Be that as it may, the Commanding Officer followed the relevant provisions of law and, accordingly, disposed of the charge against the writ petitioner under Section 80 of the Act by awarding the punishment of “severe reprimand” to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner continued in service but did not challenge the order of awarding severe reprimand to him. 16. While everything was going on fine for the writ petitioner, the Army Authorities revisited the conduct and activities of the writ petitioner and came to the conclusion that the continuous retention of the writ petitioner in army service would not only be detrimental to military discipline but also to the security of the Nation. The writ petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the Commander, 323 Mountain Brigade on 07.06.1986. The show cause notice made a specific reference to the incident of writ petitioner having crossed over to Pakistan and having received a sum of Rs.100/- as payment for services rendered by him to Pakistani Intelligence Agencies. The writ petitioner was informed that the competent authority had framed an opinion that his continuous retention in service was detrimental to the security of the Nation. The writ petitioner was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service under Rule 13(3) of the Rules. 17. The show cause notice was replied by the writ petitioner. He did not dispute his involvement in subversive activities in the year 1980 but blamed it on his little experience and lesser knowledge of the consequences of his activities. He even admitted having disclosed the entire secret of having crossed over to Pakistan before Interrogation personnel. He, however, submitted that since he had already been punished for such activities, he may be permitted to continue in service for some more time, so that he could earn his pension, which would be payable to him upon completion of 15 years of service. He, however, submitted that since he had already been punished for such activities, he may be permitted to continue in service for some more time, so that he could earn his pension, which would be payable to him upon completion of 15 years of service. The reply to the show cause notice was not accepted by the Commander, who, accordingly, proceeded to discharge the writ petitioner by exercising the power under Rule 13(3)(III)(v). 18. From the aforesaid sequence of events, it becomes abundantly clear that for commission of offence under Section 63 i.e. violation of good conduct and discipline exhibited by the writ petitioner by illegally crossing over the border without informing the Army Authorities, the writ petitioner was proceeded under Section 80 of the Act and was inflicted the punishment of “severe reprimand”. However, later on, may be after six years of the happening, the authorities having regard to the intelligence inputs about the activities of the writ petitioner and the factum of his having admitted his involvement in subversive activities, which included crossing over of border with two civilians and accepting bribe from Pakistani intelligence agencies for services rendered to them, decided to get rid of the writ petitioner who, as per the Army Authorities, was not only threat to the discipline of the Army but was also a threat to the security of the State. Accordingly, acting under Section 22 read with Rule 13, the competent authority decided to discharge the writ petitioner. He was put on show cause notice, as stated above, and was given an opportunity to tender his explanation. The writ petitioner fairly conceded the allegations and did not dispute his involvement in subversive activities. Taking tough stand, the Army Authorities did not even accept the request of the writ petitioner for allowing him to remain in service for some more months so as to enable him to earn pension. 19. The writ petitioner was discharged from serving having regard to the fact that the two powers, one exercisable under Section 80 for awarding punishment for commission of offence under Section 63 of the Act and the other vested in the competent authority to retire, release or discharge from service any person subject to the Army Act, in the manner prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules, are two different powers to be exercised by the authorities to achieve different results. The former is exercisable to punish delinquent army personnel for commission of an offence. Such person found guilty is inflicted the punishment prescribed under the Act. If a person is proceeded under Section 80 of the Act then he can be subjected to any of the punishments prescribed in the Section, which include the punishment of “severe reprimand”. 20. The power conferred on the competent authority under Section 22 of the Army Act is of the nature of Pleasure-Doctrine, whereunder Competent Authority is empowered to retire, release or discharge a person from service otherwise than by way of punishment. This power is administrative in nature and is exercisable by the Authorities specified under Rule 13 in the manner laid down therein. For a quick look, we would like to reproduce Rule 13 of the Rules herein below:- “13. Authorities empowered to authorize discharge. (1) Each of the authorities specified in column 3 of the Table below shall be the competent authority to discharge service person subject to the Act specified in column 1 thereof on the grounds specified in column 2. (2) Any power conferred by this rule on any of the aforesaid authorities shall also be exercisable by any other authority superior to it. (2A) Where the central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff decides that any persons subject to the Act should be discharged from service, either unconditionally or on the fulfillment of certain specified conditions, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Commanding Officer shall also be the competent authority to discharge from service such person or any person belonging to such class in accordance with the said decision. (3) In the table “commanding officer” means the officer commanding the corps or department to which the person to be discharged belongings except that to the case of junior commissioned officer and warrant officer of the Special Medical Section of the Army Medical Corps, the “commanding officer” means the Director of the Medical Services, Army, and in the case of junior commissioned officer and warrant officers of Remounts, Veterinary and Farms Corps, the “Commanding officer” means the Director Remounts, Veterinary and Farms. Category Grounds of discharge Competent authority to authorize discharge Manner of discharge 1 2 3 4 Junior Commissioned officers. Category Grounds of discharge Competent authority to authorize discharge Manner of discharge 1 2 3 4 Junior Commissioned officers. I.(i)(a)On completion of the period of service or tenure specified in the Regulations for his rank or appointment, are on reaching the age limit whichever is earlier, unless retained on the active list for further specified period with sanction of the Chief of the Army Staff or on becoming eligible for release under the Regulations. Commanding Officer (b)At his own request on transfer to the pension establishment. Commanding Officer, (ii)Having been found medically unfit for further service. Commanding Officer. To be carried out only on the recommendatio n of an Invaliding Board. (ii-a)Having been found to be in permanent low medical category SHAPE 2/3 by a medical board and when--- Commanding Officer The individual will be discharged from service on the recommendation of Release Medical Board. (i) No sheltered appointment is available in the unit, or (ii) Is surplus to be organization. (iii) All other classes of discharge. (a)In the case of junior commissioned officers granted direct commissions during the first 12 months service Area/Divisional Commander If the discharge is not at the request of the Junior Commissioned officer the competent authority Before sanctioning the discharge shall, if the circumstances of the case permit, give the Junior Commissioned Officer concerned an opportunity to show cause against the order of discharge. (b) In the case of JCOs, not covered by (a), serving in the Army or Command the General Officer Commanding- in-Chief of that Army or command if not below the rank of Lieutenant General. (c) In any other case the Chief of the Army Staff. Warrant Officer II. (i) (a)On completion of the period of service or tenure specified in the Regulations for this rank or appointment, or on reaching the age limit, whichever is earlier, unless retained on the active list for a further specified period with the sanction of the Brigade/Sub Area Commander or on becoming eligible to release under the Regulations. Commanding Officer (b) At his own request on the transfer to the pension establishment. Commanding officer (ii) Having been found medically unfit for further service. Commanding Officer To be carried out only on the recommendation of an Invaliding Board. Commanding Officer (b) At his own request on the transfer to the pension establishment. Commanding officer (ii) Having been found medically unfit for further service. Commanding Officer To be carried out only on the recommendation of an Invaliding Board. (ii) (a) Having been found to be in permanent low medical category SHAPE 2/3 by a medical board and when--- (i) No sheltered appointment is available in the unit, or (ii) Is surplus to the organization. (iii) All other classes of discharge Commanding Officer Warrant officer Class-I the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command in which the warrant officer serving. Other warrant officer, Divisional Area of Independent Brigade/Sub Area Commanders. The individual will be discharged from service on the recommendations of Release Medical Board. If the discharge is not at the request of the warrant officer the competent authority before sanctioning the discharge shall, if the circumstances of the case permit give the warrant officer an opportunity to show cause against the order of the discharge. Personnel enrolled under the Act who Have been attested III. (i)On fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment or having rechecked the stage at which discharged may be enforced. Commanding officer and, in the case of a person of the rank of havildar (or equivalent rank) where such person is to be discharge. Otherwise than at his own request and whether the commanding officer below the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, the brigade or sub Area Commander. (ii) On completion of a period of army service only, there being no vacancy in the Reserve. Commanding officer (in the case of persons unwilling to extend their Army Service). Applicable to person enrolled for both Army service and Reserve.(A person who has the right to extend his Army Service and wishes to exercise that right cannot be discharge under this head). (iii) Having been Found medically unfit for further service. Commanding Officer To be carried out only on the recommendation of an invaliding Board. (iii) (a) Having been found to be in permanent low medical category SHAPE 2/3 by a medical board and when--- (i) No sheltered appointment is available in the unit, or (ii) Is surplus to the organization. Commanding Officer The individual will be discharged from service on the recommendations of Release Medical Board. (iii) (a) Having been found to be in permanent low medical category SHAPE 2/3 by a medical board and when--- (i) No sheltered appointment is available in the unit, or (ii) Is surplus to the organization. Commanding Officer The individual will be discharged from service on the recommendations of Release Medical Board. (iv) At his own request before fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment Commanding Officer The Commanding officer will exercise the power only when he is satisfied as to the desirability of sanctioning application and the strength of the unit will not thereby be unduly reduced. (v)All other classes of discharge Brigade/Sub Area Commander The Brigade or Sub Area Commander before ordering the discharge shall, if the circumstances of the case permit give to the person whose discharge is is contemplated an opportunity to show cause against the contemplated discharge. Persons enrolled under the Act but not attested IV. All classes of discharge Commanding officer or officer Commanding Recruit reception Camp, or a Recruiting. Technical Recruiting or Deputy Technical Recruiting officer. In the case of persons requesting to be discharged before fulfilling the conditions of their enrolment, the commanding officers will exercise this poser only where he is satisfied as to the desirability of sanctioning the application that the strength of the unit will not thereby be unduly reduced. Recruits who are considered unlikely to become efficient soldiers will be dealt with under this item. 21. From a glance of Rule 13 of the Army Rules, it would transpire that after Sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 there is a table prescribed which has four columns. Column (1) denotes category; Column (2) lays down grounds of discharge; Column (3) prescribes competent authority to authorize discharge; and Column (4) deals with manner of discharge. The persons enrolled under the Army Act other than Warrant Officer and Junior Commissioned Officer have been provided to be discharged by the Commanding Officer on various grounds indicated in Clause (I) to (IV). So far as other classes of discharge are concerned, Brigade/Sub Area Commander would be competent to discharge. 22. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was discharged on the grounds enumerated in clauses (I) to (IV) and, therefore, Brigade/Sub Area Commander was competent authority to discharge the writ petitioner. So far as other classes of discharge are concerned, Brigade/Sub Area Commander would be competent to discharge. 22. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was discharged on the grounds enumerated in clauses (I) to (IV) and, therefore, Brigade/Sub Area Commander was competent authority to discharge the writ petitioner. In any case, competence of the Authority passing the order of discharge was not subject matter of challenge in the writ petition nor is assailed by the writ petitioner even before us. Since the nature of powers exercised while awarding punishment of severe reprimand to the writ petitioner and order of discharge issued by the Brigade/Sub Area Commander in the exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 22 read with Rule 13 are different, as such, neither the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India nor Section 121 of the Army Act are applicable and attracted. The writ petitioner, who was convicted for an offence under Section 63 of the Act by the Commander by proceeding under Section 80 has not been tried again for the same offence either by the Court Martial or by proceeding under Section 80, 83, 84 and 85 of the Act. 23. Before we close the discussion, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 121 of the Act as well, which reads as follows:- “121. Prohibition of second trial.-----When any person subject to this Act has been acquitted or convicted of an offence by a court-martial or by a criminal court, or has been dealt with under any of the Sections 80, 83, 84 and 85, he shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence by a court-martial or dealt with under the said sections.” 24. The Writ Court has not clearly appreciated the distinction between the two powers exercised by the Army Authorities in respect of the writ petitioner and has erroneously concluded that the Army Authorities could not have punished the writ petitioner for the same offence twice. The writ petitioner was punished for commission of offence under Section 63 by the Army Authorities only once when he was dealt with under Section 80 and administered severe reprimand. The writ petitioner was punished for commission of offence under Section 63 by the Army Authorities only once when he was dealt with under Section 80 and administered severe reprimand. Second time, he was discharged from service in the exercise of different power, which is administrative in nature and more or less akin to the pleasure doctrine available to the competent authorities enumerated under Rule 13 of the Army Rules. 25. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, allowed. Judgment of the Writ Court, impugned in this appeal, is set aside and as a result the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is dismissed.