WP(C) 1836/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R. Bora, learned Central Government Counsel who represents the respond ents. 2. The petitioners in these 2 cases were members of the Assam Rifles Organi zation and challenge their respective discharge orders. Since common submissions have been advanced by the rival counsels and facts in the 2 cases are substanti ally similar, both the cases are disposed of with this common order. For the sak e of convenience, the facts are noted from WP(C) 1830/2003 (Ageng Rongmei vs. Un ion of India). 3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure-C) of the Commandant, 4 Assam Rifles, whereby the petitioner/rifleman, has been discharged from service for being an incorrigible offender. The impugned action was preced ed by a show cause notice dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-A), wherein it was alleged that in course of a career of 14 years, the petitioner has earned 4 red ink entr ies in his service record for various acts of misconduct. As the petitioner fail ed to improve his conduct, he was considered to be an incorrigible offender and action was proposed in the notice to discharge him from service. In his reply da ted 18.12.2002, the petitioner admitted his earlier lapses but requested for com passionate consideration because of his family circumstances. However by the imp ugned order, the Commandant on consideration of the reply, ordered for discharge of the petitioner for being an incorrigible offender soldier. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is th e sole bread earner for the family and therefore, a lesser punishment could have attained the objective of disciplining the errant soldier. In reply the Central Government Counsel submits that despite lesser punishments earlier awarded for past acts of misconduct, the petitioner continued to be indisciplined. Since suc h acts of indiscipline would have a pernicious influence on the other serving pe rsonnel, any lesser punishment was not found to be justified. It is further subm itted by Ms. Bora, that it is important for members of the armed forces to be in disciplined in their conduct and incorrigible offenders have no place in the ra nks of a disciplined force. The learned counsel points out that the petitioners would be entitled to retirement benefits as they have been discharged and not di smissed and therefore no lenient consideration can be shown to them by consideri ng their respective family obligations. 5. I have considered the basis on which the Disciplinary Authority have con cluded the conduct of the delinquents to be beyond correction. The earlier acts of indiscipline when they were given lesser punishment have also been noted. It is also necessary to record that through a discharge order, the 2 petitioners wo uld be entitled to receive pensionary dues. In such circumstances, considering t he impact the indisciplined conduct of a rifleman may have on the other personne l of the organization, I see no justification to interfere with the impugned dis charge orders. 6. In view of above, both the writ petitions are considered to be without a ny merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.