IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15944 of 2006 RAM AKBAL PRASAD Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS For petitioner – Rajballabh Singh, Advocate. For respondents –Kashi Nath Chaubey (C.G.C.)Advoate. ----------- 3. 30.07.08. Some facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was granted sixty days of Earned Leave with effect from 20.4.2001 to 18.6.2001., but he failed to rejoin his duty on 19. 6. 2001. Absence of the petitioner for the unexplained time forced the respondents to take action against him in terms of Border Security Force Act. The petitioner was issued registered letter asking him show cause and the reason for unexplained absence. The respondents did not hear from him. Thereafter, under Section 62 of B.S.F. Act Court of Inquiry was ordered and the Court of Inquiry held that the petitioner was an absconder. Thereafter, his continuance in the Force was considered undesirable. This was done after following all the procedure prescribed. Finally, the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 4th January, 2002. There is an unexplained silence by the petitioner for almost more than four years. Petitioner has approached the High Court by filing of the petition in December, 2006 . The present writ is based on rejection of order of his appeal dated 27.7.06. The appeal of the petitioner has been rejected treating a legal notice which was sent on his behalf earlier. The rejection order is dated 27th July, 2006 which is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the - 2 - respondents states the back grounds and the action taken against the petitioner has been explained. On perusal of the same, it would indicate that out come of the exercise is in accordance with law. The Court does not find any legal infirmity either in the proceeding adopted by the respondents or the decision taken by them. Not only this, Court does not find any explanation.as to why the petitioner chose to ignore the order of dismissal passed for more than four years. However, there is another aspect of the matter which emerges from the record. Petitioner has served Border Security Force for almost thirteen years. He had a satisfactory service record.There could be compelling circumstance, why the petitioner behaved in the manner which has led to the present predicament. The Court, is of the opinion that the respondents may reconsider the punishment of removal from the force, keeping in mind his has past service and may be only the misdemeanour committed by him. Petitioner is granted liberty to file a memorial/ revision/petition before the Director General of Border Security Force against the order dated 27th July, 2006, contained in Annexure-1. If petitioner makes out a case he may be considered by imposing some other punishment keeping in view of length of service of the petitioner as well as his service record. Let the decision on the memorial of the petitioner be taken within four months from the date of such filing. Writ is disposed of with the above liberty. M. Pal. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) - 3 -