https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192332 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. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192332 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192332