IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.604 of 2006 CHHOTA RAI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Tej Narayan Singh,& Satyender Pd. Singh, Advocates For the Union of India: Mr.R.K.Singh,Advocate. ---------- 3 29.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief or interference in the matter because the order of communication dated 20th July, 2005 contained in ananexure-1 is self speaking. Not only this the respondents in the counter affidavit have indicated the reason why the impugned order contained in annexure-1 came to be issued. The petitioner has been found to be a habitual offender and for that he had earned more than six punishments during the period of service of nine years. In that view of the matter the respondents have invoked their power under Rule 15(2)(k) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. The service rule do not make the petitioner liable for any other relief due to the length of service rendered by the petitioner and the respondents cannot be directed to extend any benefit to the petitioner. If the petitioner is entitled to any payments due to his discharge under the head of GPF or otherwise he has freedom to claim and the respondents have duty to settle it at the earliest. This writ application is dismissed with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)