ORDER
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
1. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge are shortly as follows :-
2. On 27th May, 1986, the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air-force as a Technical Trade Airmen. Thereafter, the respondent underwent training courses and on 27th May, 1991 he was promoted to the substantive rank of Corporal. It appears that the respondent developed some psychotic problem. On 30th October, 1995 the respondent’s invalidment Medical Board was constituted which found him unfit for further service on account of the psychotic illness. The opinion of the Medical Board was approved by Air Head-quarters on 11.12.1995 and by the order dated 8.1.1996 the respondent was discharged from the service. The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging validity of the impugned order of discharge. The respondent denied the appellant’s case and alleged that the respondent was invalided from service on account of the disability which was not attributable to/or aggravated by the air-force service. By the order dated 13th May, 1998, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order of discharge on the sole ground of non production of relevant record by the appellant.
3. The appellant’s main grievance is that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellant for production of the relevant medical record before the Court. It is contended that the respondent was invalided from service on account of the disability which is not attributable to or aggravated by the air-force service. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order of discharge dated 8.1.1996 on the sole ground of non-production of relevant record. It would be advantageous to reproduce the following paragraphs of the judgment.
“In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Medical Board was constituted and on the basis of the decision taken by the Medical Board, the petitioner has been discharged from service. No document has been filed in support of the averments made in the counter affidavit. Now, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the concerned officer has not brought the record to the court. Respondents ought to have filed the relevant documents along with the counter affidavit so that the petitioner can explain those documents. The respondents seem to be unaware of their obligation and notice had gone to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On this short ground the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits.”
4. We must point out that when the notice to show cause was issued by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition filed by the respondent, it was incumbent upon the appellant, to whom the notice was addressed, to produce the entire record before the Court alongwith its return. It has to be borne in mind that a writ of certiorari is not merely meant for granting relief claimed by the petitioner but it is also certification of record, and therefore, it is necessary that the entire relevant record relating to the matter should be placed before the Court for its examination. The whole object of a writ of certiorari is to bring up the records of the authority concerned for examination by the Court so that it may be satisfied that the authority concerned has not gone beyond its statutory jurisdiction and has exercised its power in accordance with law. Non production of the relevant records completely defeats the purpose for which such writs are issued. We strongly deprecate this attempt on the part of the appellant to bye-pass the Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and expedient in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the appellant to produce the entire record of the respondent before the Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Single Judge with the direction that he shall dispose of the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce the relevant record before the Court. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 28.8.2000. No order as to costs.
