JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner was dismissed from service on April 20, 1989 with effect from July 21, 1986. A challenge to this order has been made primarily on the ground that the dismissal can be only prospective and not retrospective. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The petitioner was recruited as a Sepoy in the Indian Army on March 31, 1976. In November 1985, when the petitioner was on leave, he was involved in a case under Sections 302/307/326/324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the trial court. Vide judgment dated June 5, 1987, the High Court partly accepted the appeal. The petitioner’s conviction under Sections 326/149 I.P.C. only was maintained. After completing his sentence, the petitioner reported to the Station Headquarters, Jullundur Cantonement to issue a railway warrant to him from Hoshiarpur to Ramgarh (Bihar) on May 23, 1988. The petitioner was served with an order of discharge from the Army and by orders dated April 20, 1989, he was dismissed from service with effect from July 21, 1986. Copies of these orders are at Annexures P-6 and P-7. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order at Annexure P-7.
3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the factual position has not been disputed. It has, however, been contended that the orders are legal and valid.
4. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a two-fold contention. Firstly, he submits that by an order passed in April 1989, the petitioner cannot be dismissed from service with effect from July 21, 1986. He further submits that the action is discriminatory as one of the persons convicted along with the petitioner is working in Dairy Development Corporation,
5. Mr. H. S. Giani, appearing for the respondents controverts the claim on behalf of the petitioner.
6. An executive order to the prejudice of a person can only be prospective. This is all the more so in case of an order of punishment. The order of dismissal (Annexure P-7) was passed on April 20, 1989.. The order shows that the petitioner has been dismissed from service under rule 17 and para No. 23 of the Defence Services Regulation. However, the dismissal has been made effective from July 21, 1986. Mr. Gurcharan Singh contends that the entire order is vitiated’ as it has been made retrospective in operation. In my view, this contention is not well merited. The action in dismissing the petitioner from service is not bad in law. It is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. However, the action in making it retrospective is without jurisdiction. It is consequently vitiated to the extent of its retrospectivity. As such, the stipulation in the order (Annexure P-7) that the dismissal takes effect from July 21, 1986 is set aside.
7. I find no merit in the contention that the action suffers from the vice of discrimination inasmuch as Sardul Singh who was also convicted along with the petitioner is now working in the Dairy Development Corporation. The Indian Army and the Dairy Development Corporation are different employers. The requirements of the jobs are obviously different. No ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out.
8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the order of dismissal shall be effective only from April 20, 1989. The petitioner shall be entitled to any consequential relief that may ensue from this. In other respects, the petition is dismissed.