IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16083 of 2008 RAJIV KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Surendra Singh, resident of village Chandaupur, P.O. Chenful, Chapra, District Saran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The SO-in-C, Singnal Directorate, Integrated Head Quarter of MOD (Army), DHQ P.O., New Delhi- 110011 3. The Director PS4, A.G’s Branch, Army HQs, DHQ PO, New Delhi 110011 4. The Commanding Officer, 3 Military Training Regiment 2 Signals Training Centre, Margao, Goa 5. The Commanding Officer, OIC, Documents, 3 Military Training Regiment, 2 Signals Training Centre, PIN 900197, C/o 56 APO 6. The Branch Recruiting Officer, Danapur Cant, Danapur, Bihar … Respondents ----------- 3. 5.5.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the following relief: “a. For quashing the order of discharge dated 11.5.2006 and orders dated 28.2.2007 and dated 16.5.2007 whereby the petitioner has been denied disability benefits under AGI Scheme and disability pension and further to quash the order dated 29.9.2007 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been unilaterally rejected. b. For direction to the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in 2 service, and with all consequential service and monetary benefits and/or to grant disability pension as the disability whatsoever was attributable to the military service.” would submit that after the petitioner was discharged on medical ground on 11.5.2006 he had filed an application in terms of Rule 11(2) of the Army Rules which, however, has been rejected by an order dated 29.9.2007 by the authority of the same rank who had earlier passed the order of discharge of the petitioner. He would, accordingly, submit that the whole purpose of filing application which was in form of an appeal has been frustrated. He would further submit that the petitioner had become victim of disease Schizophrenia only in course of his employment and that there was no proof of the petitioner suffering from such disease before his recruitment in the armed forces. To that extent learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that if the petitioner was suffering from such disease his recruitment after full medical examination would not have been made. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner had filed no appeal or review application and therefore, the order dated 29.9.2007 cannot be said to be bad. He would also submit that there are documents to show that the petitioner had himself admitted to be suffering from this disease of Schizophrenia even two years before his recruitment in the army services and his also being treated by the civilian doctors. He would, therefore, submit that neither the said disease of Schizophrenia can be deemed to be an after-math on account of his continuation in army service nor the petitioner would be entitled for disability pension in terms of the provisions made in Army Act and Rules. This Court infact could have itself gone into the main issue of the petitioner being allegedly affected by the disease of Schizophrenia in course of his continuation in service in Armed Forces but when it becomes clear that the remedy of the petitioner under Rule 11(2) of the Army Rules, 1954 as sought to be invoked him by 4 filing a detailed application on 10.9.2007 has been rendered futile on account of its being disposed of by an order dated 26.9.2007 by an Officer of the same rank who had passed the order of discharge of the petitioner on medical ground. In this context it has to be noted that the order relating to discharge of the petitioner on medical ground was passed by Mr. A.K.Chugh, Colonel, Commanding Officer and the application filed by the petitioner under section 11(2) has also been disposed of by Sri J.A.A.D’Souza, Colonel, Officer In- charge (Documentation) on behalf of Commanding Officer. There can be no appeal from caesar to caesar and consequently the order contained in Annexure 1/C dated 29th September, 2007 must be held to be bad and is accordingly quashed. Consequently the writ application to the extent indicated above is allowed and the matter is remitted back to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner on 10.9.2007 by the competent authority who must be superior in rank to the Officer, who had passed the order of discharge of the 5 petitioner on medical ground and had also issued the consequential discharge certificate. Such exercise by way passing a reasoned order must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/