Siddhartha Varma, J.

1. The instant case relates to a Gentleman Cadet who could not pass out as an Officer on account of the fact that on 07.08.2017, he was served with a relegation order and thereafter, on 20.12.2017/21.12.2017, he was withdrawn from the Officers Training Academy.

2. Before proceedings further with the order, it would be relevant to understand three specific terms which would be used in the instant judgment. They are

(i) Restriction;

(ii) Relegation; and

(iii) Withdrawal.

3. The meaning of these three terms can be got from the Administrative Instructions which are issued by the Army Training Command, Shimla. The Administrative Instructions govern the functioning of the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, Officers Training Academy, Chennai and the Officers Training Academy, Gaya. From the Administrative Instructions when we try to glean out the meaning of the terms Restriction, Relegation and Withdrawal, we realize that the Instructions have tried to have a "Discipline Policy" which is more corrective and reformatory in nature and it is not exactly punitive. Be that as it may, while punishments are awarded, there are times, when they become serious enough when they result in the withdrawal of the candidate from the Academy; meaning thereby that upon the punishment of withdrawal being imposed the Gentleman Cadet loses his chance of becoming an Officer.

4. The word "Restriction" has been defined in the "Discipline Policy" as a minor punishment for minor offences.

5. "Relegation" again is a punishment which is therefor slightly more serious offence and has been defined in paragraph 60 of the Instructions. To understand the term "Relegation", paragraph 60 will have to be perused.

"60. A GC/LCI Service Cadet may be relegated to the junior term for the following reasons:-

(a) If he/she possesses the basic qualities of an officer, but requires more time to come up to the laid down standards.

(b) If a GC/LC misses more than 42 days of training in any term at IMA/OTA, Chennai/OTA, Gaya, owing to medical reasons or any other reason. The period of 42 days of absence from training will include the following:-

(i) Admission in hospital including Attend 'C'/Bed Rest.

(ii) Sick Leave.

(iii) Special Leave (refer Paragraph 129(c) below).

(iv) Absent Without Leave (AWL)/Overstaying Leave (OSL), if not relegated for this offence/misconduct earlier.

(v) 25% of the period as LMC and excused physical activity (excused Physical Training, Parade, Games and such like category).

Note. Sundays and holidays being observed by the Academy, mid term break, term break, leave granted for SSB (refer Paragraph 129 (d) below) and absence due to organised activity like attending Cadet Exchange Programme and attending sports events as part of the Academy team in other Academies or elsewhere, will not be counted towards training missed.

(c) If a Service Cadet in ACC Wing misses more than 42 days of training in any term in ACC Wing, owing to illness or other medical reasons. Marginal cases, (one to three days) will, however, be referred to HQ ARTRAC along with the recommendations of the Commandant, IMA or a decision.

(d) If a GC/LC/Service Cadet is awarded more than 42 Restrictions in a term or 60 or more Restrictions in any two consecutive terms.

(e) If he/she fails to achieve the required pass marks in academics and service subjects, fails to achieve minimum standards in outdoor training, including physical training and any other aspect/sphere of training, including Officer Quotient and the required standard in overall performance.

(f) On disciplinary grounds, (A Court of Inquiry will invariably be held in such cases and wherever necessary, provisions of Army Rule 180 to be imposed for conduct of the same in respect of Service Cadets and in respect of non service GCs/LCs tenets of natural justice should be applied).

(g) Any other reason within the control of the GC/LC/Service Cadet."

6. Likewise to understand the punishment of "Withdrawal", we will have to traverse the contents of paragraphs-70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 of the Administrative Instructions which are being reproduced hereasunder:-

"70. The following cases will tantamount to withdrawal:-

(a) Failing to attain requisite minimum standards in Officer Quotient, Physical Training, Outdoor Training and Service/Academics subjects, within the stipulated period, in following circumstances:-

(i) Second relegation in the same training term, excluding any relegation on medical grounds or for missing more than 42 days of training.

(ii) Third relegation during complete stay at IMA/OTA, Chennai/OTA, Gaya, excluding any relegation on medical grounds or for missing more than 42 days of training.

(b) Fourth relegation for missing more than 42 days of training during entire stay in the Academy, as per Paragraph 60(b) above.

(c) Disciplinary grounds, depending on the merit of the case.

(d) Medical grounds, including permanent HIV positive cases, based on the recommendations of a medical board.

(e) On adverse security verification.

(f) Furnishing false information in the application(s) for induction into the Academy, for grant of commission in the Army.

(g) Apart from the Service Cadets, who are permitted to get married during term break, after obtaining prior permission from the Commandant, other GCs/LCs are not permitted to get married and will be withdrawn if they get married during training. A Service Cadet, though permitted to get married, is not allowed to bring his wife/family along to the ACC Wing/IMA/OTA, Gaya as he is not permitted to keep his wife with him during the training period at ACC Wing/IMA/OTA, Gaya. The Service Cadets would also be responsible to get their own documentation done with regard to this personal occurrence.

(h) On failing to submit their Original Degree Certificate within 90 days (refer Paragraph 7(c) above).

(j) Not conforming to Academy Rules and Regulations, depending on merit of the case.

(k) Not meeting the conditions laid down for joining the Academy.

71. Due attention will be paid to the following important aspects:-

(a) Withdrawal will normally be made only at the end of a term. This will be done after the GC/LC/Service Cadet has been given adequate warning and sufficient opportunities to improve himself/herself.

(b) However, a GC/LC/Service Cadet can be recommended to be withdrawn on disciplinary and/or medical grounds at any time during a term.

(c) Sufficient time for a GC/LC/Service Cadet, to show improvement to be provided.

72. All cases of withdrawal (except for those on medical grounds) will be sanctioned by IHQ of MoD (Army) (DCOAS IS and T). The cases will be properly scrutinized and forwarded along with the recommendations of Commandant IMA/OTA, Chennai/OTA, Gaya and HQARTRAC.

73. All likely cases of withdrawal on grounds of failure to meet minimum laid down standards will be intimated to HQ ARTRAC minimum one month in advance.

74. In case of withdrawal on disciplinary grounds, the GCs/LCs/Service Cadets will make payment of the stipend paid, cost of training, messing, clothing, travelling allowance and accessories at the Academy prior to departure. Those earlier inducted on Bond bases and are unable to produce the Degree Certificate in the required time and are being withdrawn will settle all their dues before departure."

7. The petitioner-appellant joined the Officers Training Academy on 04.10.2014. On 05.02.2015, he was relegated for the first time and, thereafter, on 28.12.2015 for having not achieved the minimum standards in physical training was relegated for the second time. However, the petitioner-appellant passed the junior term in March, 2016. Despite that on 27.09.2016 for indiscipline, he was withdrawn from the Officers Training Academy. This necessitated him to file Writ Petition bearing Writ-A No. 43700 of 2016 (Rajat Aren v. Union of Indian and others) which was dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2016. Thereafter, a Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 684 of 2016 was filed. When the Special Appeal was allowed on 15.12.2016, the petitioner-appellant joined as a trainee in the senior term course on 01.04.2017. In between 01.04.2017 and 28.07.2017, the petitioner was awarded 50 restrictions i.e. minor punishments as per Para-32 of the Administrative Instructions. On 27.07.2017 for having obtained more than 42 restrictions, the petitioner was given a show cause notice as to why he be not relegated in terms of para-60(d) of the Administrative Instructions. When the reply was considered and, orders were passed on 07.08.2017, another show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 08.08.2017 asking him as to why he be not withdraw from the Academy as he had faced three relegations during his stay at the Officers Training Academy. This show-cause notice had revealed that in pursuance of the provisions of Para-70(a)(i) and Para- 70(a)(ii) of the Administrative Instructions, the withdrawal was to take place. The Petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice on 08.08.2017 itself. The order dated 20.12.2017 was passed by the Colonel of the General Staff (Coordination) for Commandant and consequently the petitioner was withdrawn from the Officers Training Academy. On 21.12.2017, the petitioner was intimated of the approval. Pending the final punishment of withdrawal, the petitioner was granted leave from the Academy on 11.08.2017. The petitioner prayed for reconsideration but nothing happened and thereafter, petitioner filed the Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 43700 of 2016. In the meantime, the withdrawal order was passed on 20.12.2017, which though was not challenged, was considered by the learned single Judge and the Writ Petition was dismissed on 26.03.2019. The instant Special Appeal was filed thereafter.

8. The petitioner argued the Special Appeal in person and essentially made the following submissions.

(i) The learned single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he dismissed the writ petition despite the fact that he found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner could not have been so imposed owing to the fact that the punishment imposed travelled beyond the scales as were set- forth in the Administrative Instructions. The Petitioner-Appellant argued that when the reasons given in the impugned orders were held to be insufficient for awarding the punishment then the learned single Judge could not have relied upon the other factors which were given out in the counter-affidavit for upholding the punishment. The Petitioner-Appellant relying upon the judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in 1978 SCR (3) 272 submitted that the Court, therefore, fell in error when it relied upon certain averments of the counter-affidavit to uphold the punishment.

9. The Appellant drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 11.08.2017 by which the petitioner was granted leave, pending approval of the Competent Authority for awarding of the punishment of withdrawal and also the preceding show-cause notice dated 27.07.2017. The petitioner also submitted that if the notice dated 27.07.2017 was perused, it would become clear that since the petitioner had been awarded 42 restrictions in a single term then he as per the provisions of para 60(d) of the Administrative Instructions was liable to be relegated. He also submitted that the show-cause notice vis-à-vis relegation had also mentioned about the fact that since the petitioner would be relegated for the second time in the same term and for the third time in his complete stay at the Academy, he would, therefore, be withdrawn from the Academy.

10. The appellant also drew the attention of the Court to the show-cause notice vis-à-vis withdrawal. The show-cause notice was simply to the effect that since the petitioner had been relegated for the second time in the same term and thrice during his stay in the Academy, he was to be withdrawn from the Academy as per paragraphs 70 (a)(i) and 70(a)(ii) of the Administrative Instructions. He also drew the attention of the Court to the leave certificate which was given to the petitioner pending the decision which was to be taken for his withdrawal and he submitted that there was no other reason which weighed on the minds of the authorities for which they were contemplating the petitioner's withdrawal. The only statement of fact which was given in the leave certificate was that if the petitioner was withdrawn from the Academy then he would have to pay to the Academy the cost which was incurred upon him during his stay at the Academy. The cost was calculated and it was found that the petitioner-appellant would have to pay Rs. 2,56,059/- to the Academy. The Appellant, therefore submitted that there was absolutely not a whisper in either of the orders or in the show-cause notices with regard to the fact that the reasons given in the paragraph 60 (e) of me Administrative Instructions could be considered for the purposes of his relegation and thereafter the consequent withdrawal. Petitioner has submitted that when the learned single Judge had found that the scale of punishment was not commensurate to the infractions which were committed by the petitioner then there was no reason for taking into account other reasons which were given in the counter-affidavit for the relegation of the petitioner.

11. Even otherwise, the petitioner has submitted that the reasons which weighed on the minds of the learned single Judge vis-à-vis the petitioner's incompetence in his physical tests were not available. In fact, the petitioner has submitted that in the various attempts which the petitioner had made for the 5 metre shuttle and 60 metre sprints, he had ultimately passed in the third attempt.

12. So far as the non-participation in the test of Swimming was concerned, the petitioner has submitted that the Academy at Chennai did not have any Swimming Pool and, therefore, he could not attempt Swimming. He, therefore, submitted that when as per the provisions of paragraph-34, the scale of punishments were not found commensurate to the infractions made by the petitioner during his stay in the Academy then the punishment of relegation and withdrawal could not have been passed.

(ii) The appellant thereafter submitted that the question of malice was not considered by the learned single Judge in its correct perspective. He submitted that as per paragraph 67 of the Administrative Instructions, when the petitioner-appellant was treated as relegated then he should have mandatorily been given a Company which was different from the one where he was earlier being trained. Since the petitioner-appellant heavily relied upon Paragraph-67 of the Administrative Instructions, the same is being reproduced here as under:-

"67. Change of Company. On relegation, a GC/LC/Service Cadet will normally be transferred to a different company and preferably a different battalion, unless the GC/LC/Service Cadet himself/herself makes a special request against the change. In case of relegation on disciplinary grounds, change of company/battalion is mandatory."

13. The appellant has submitted that the Academy had two Battalions namely, Ranjit Singh Battalion and Shivaji Battalion. The Ranjit Singh Battalion had three Companies known as Jessami Company, Kohima Company and Basantar Company. The Shivaji Battalion had four Companies namely, Naushera Company, Maiktila Company, Phillora Company and Zozila Company. The appellant submitted that as per the provisions of paragraph-67 of the Administrative Instructions, when the Battalion of the appellant was changed i.e. when he was shifted to Shivaji Battalion from Ranjit Singh Battalion then it was imperative to see that the petitioner-appellant was not subjected to any of the officers who were there in the Ranjit Singh Battalion. The petitioner-appellant has submitted that after the petitioner was put in the Shivaji Battalion, he was sent to the Naushera Company, despite the fact that he should also be given in Maiktila Company. In Naushera Company, two officers namely, Major M.K. Abbasi and Major Siddharth Dixit, who were presiding Officers in his earlier Court of Inquiry, were Instructors. He, therefore, submitted that even though the Battalions were changed the officers in the Naushera Company continued to be the very same officers who were there in the Ranjit Singh Battalion and who had also conducted the Court of Inquiry against the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that because the respondents were feeling slighted on account of the fact that they had countenanced defeat in the earlier round of litigation, this putting of the petitioner in the Naushera Company was done. Had the petitioner been put in the Maiktila Company of the Shivaji Battalion then he would not have faced the wrath of the two officers who were out to harm the petitioner.

(iii) The petitioner apprehending an argument from the respondent's side had submitted that this Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter as all the correspondences which were done by the respondents with the petitioner were done at his Meerut address. In this regard, the petitioner-appellant relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 [LQ/SC/2014/795] : (AIR 2014 SC 3607 [LQ/SC/2014/795] ) and has specifically relied upon para-9 of the judgment. Since the petitioner has relied upon the paragraph-9, therefore, the same has been reproduced as under:-

"The interpretation given by this Court in the aforesaid decisions resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction. As a result, clause (1-A) was inserted in Article 226 by the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976. The amended clause (2) now reads as under:-

"226. Power of the High Courts to issue certain writs - (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3) xxxxx

(4) xxxxx

On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term 'cause of action' as appearing in clause (2) came for consideration time and again before this Court."

14. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Krishna Agarwal, Advocate, however, in reply submitted that the learned single Judge did not err while he looked into the other failures of the petitioner which had been detailed in the counter-affidavit. He submitted that it was open for the Court to have gone into the record as was available and since as per paragraph 60(e) of the Administrative Instructions, the petitioner could have been relegated on account of the fact that he was failed to achieve the minimum physical training marks, he could have definitely been relegated. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India also submitted that when there were other Instructors then it could not have been said that the simple presence of just two officers of the earlier Battalion would have affected the petitioner's stay in the Academy. Still further, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that since the orders were passed in Chennai, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

15. Having heard the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, this Court is of the view that the Special Appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

16. It is settled law that a Court cannot travel beyond the reasons which are given in the orders. In Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), it has specifically been held that the Court had to examine the facts and law as were given in the impugned order and could not decide a particular issue or a case on the basis of the various averments made in the counter-affidavit.

17. In the instant case, we find that the relegation and thereafter the consequential withdrawal had taken place only on account of the fact that the petitioner had more than 42 restrictions in a particular term and when it was found that those restrictions were such punishments which were imposed beyond the scale provided in the Administrative Instructions then the orders deserved to be struck down. A perusal of the orders definitely shows that none of the grounds for relegation as have been given in the paragraph 60(e) of the Administrative Instructions were taken into account by the orders impugned. Even otherwise, the Court finds that if the learned single Judge was of the view that the petitioner could not have been retained for military services then he could not have outright dismissed the writ petition. A dismissal of the writ petition not only upholds the impugned order but also makes the petitioner liable for the payment of Rs. 2,56,059/- to the Academy and also entails certain civil liabilities by which he becomes disqualified from getting into any other Government job. Since we find that the learned single Judge had based his judgment on the various averments made in the counter-affidavit, we are of the view that the judgment cannot be sustained. However, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that the petitioner could not achieve the minimum physical marks and, therefore, he cannot be continued in the military of the country.

18. Under such circumstances, even though we set aside the order of the learned single Judge we provide that the petitioner's punishments would continue. However, the petitioner would not be required to return any of the amount which might have been spent on his stay at the Academy. Also we provide that the petitioner would not have to face any civil consequences on account of his withdrawal. He will be free to take up any job other than a job in the Armed Forces.

19. With these observations/directions, the writ petition is partly allowed.