Army discharge upheld despite wrong statutory reference; inquiry was only preliminary and the order remained simpliciter.

An Army discharge was upheld where the competent authority acted under Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954 read with Section 22 of the Army Act, 1950 after giving the appellant a show-cause opportunity. The court of inquiry under Rule 177 was treated as a preliminary fact-finding process, not a trial or court-martial, and the appellant was allowed to participate and cross-examine witnesses. The discharge order was not invalidated by a mistaken reference to Section 20, since an incorrect statutory citation does not defeat an order when the legal power otherwise exists. The discharge was held to be simpliciter and not punitive or stigmatic.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's discharge from Army service was vitiated for want of compliance with the requirements of the Army Act and Army Rules, including the effect of the court of inquiry and the reference to a wrong statutory provision in the discharge order.

Analysis: The order of discharge was passed by the competent authority under Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954 read with Section 22 of the Army Act, 1950 after the appellant was given an opportunity to show cause. The court of inquiry constituted under Rule 177 was only a preliminary fact-finding exercise to collect material for superior officers and was not a trial or court-martial. The appellant was afforded opportunity to participate and cross-examine witnesses. Mere mention of Section 20 in the discharge order did not invalidate the action, because a wrong reference to the source of power does not defeat an order if the power otherwise exists in law. The discharge was found to be simpliciter and not punitive or stigmatic.

Conclusion: The discharge order was valid and was not vitiated on the grounds urged by the appellant.

---