1 wp.9498-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9498 OF 2010 Rohit Abhay Tamboli ...Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents. -------- Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, for Petitioner. Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant with Mr. Jaydeep S. Das, for Respondents. ------- CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 03, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 22.7.2010 passed by respondent no.4 withdrawing the petitioner from pre-commissioning training on medical grounds. 3. We have perused the reply affidavit, the relevant Rule No.424(c)(ii) of Regulations For The Medical Services of 2 wp.9498-2010 the Armed Forces Act, 1983(RMSAF) and so also the order passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. It appears that during the training period, the petitioner was under psychiatric care at the instance of Delhi authority. The petitioner had resorted to CTW, CME, Pune and remained absent without leave on six different occasions during the period between September 2008 and February 2009. The petitioner had been diagnosed and treated by Civil Psychiatrist as a case of Adjustment Disorder with Tab Escitalopram. He was also admitted in the Military Hospital at Kirkee twice. In view of repeated hospitalisation, unfavorable response to the treatment from both civil and service psychiatrist and poor motivation, he was declared unfit for further training and the retention in service was not recommended as cadet since he had become unacceptable. However, before taking the impugned action, he was given show cause notice which he responded by filing an appeal dated 5.10.2009. Thus, it is clear that the impugned action was taken after following the due procedure and on the basis of the report of the medical board. 4. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind independently to the facts of the case and has simply approved 3 wp.9498-2010 the recommendations made by DGMS (Army), DG (AFMS) and AG and rejected the appeal. 5. We have perused the reply affidavit so also the order passed by the Appellate Authority. We are not inclined to hold that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind independently to the facts and has simply accepted the recommendations. Even at this stage, when we asked Mr. Badiwadekar the grounds of challenge to the impugned order on merits, neither he could point out any error of law nor any error on the part of the Medical Board which declared him medically unfit. Merely because the order states that the recommendations are accepted does not mean that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind independently to the facts. In our opinion, no error of law/ facts, worth considering in writ jurisdiction has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner was found to be unfit on medical ground and that finding has not been challenged being wrong and illegal. The challenge to the impugned order by learned counsel for the petitioner is solely on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not consider the appeal on merits independently. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate 4 wp.9498-2010 Authority in the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)