1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1961/2008. (RAJBEER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 24.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. B.R. Bera for the petitioner. The petitioner was tried by SSFC for an offence under Section 19(1) of the Border Security Force Act for absenting himself without leave. On being pleaded guilty to the charges, the sentence of dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner. A petition thereafter was submitted on 23.03.2005 by the petitioner to Inspector General, Border Security Force, Jodhpur seeking reinstatement, but that came to be rejected on 23.03.2005. A petition for writ, thereafter was preferred and that also came to be rejected by this Court on 01.12.2005 in the following terms: “I do not find any sufficient ground to entertain the present writ petition. The punishment order was appealable, against which no appeal has been filed. So far the representation is said to have been made is concerned, therein also, the delinquency has been admitted, and a request was made for re-employment. Obviously the punishment of 2 dismissal has not been challenged by him in that representation either. Thus, I do not find any force in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.” After dismissal of the writ petition, an another statutory representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Director General, Border Security Force on 01.06.2006 and that too stood rejected on 25.07.2006. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner remained absent from duties because of unavoidable circumstances and specially for the reason that his wife left the house leaving behind his small kids. As per the petitioner, the respondents should have taken into consideration the reasons for remaining absent from duties objectively. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced for the reason that the petitioner himself pleaded guilty and the respondents as per the provisions of Rule 142 (2) of the Border Security Force Rules after explaining the arraignment imposed the sentence. The sentence imposed, thus, suffers from no error. It is also pertinent to note that this Court by the order dated 01.12.2005 rejected the writ petition 3 preferred by the petitioner on the count that delinquency has been admitted and the request was made for the representation only for re-employment. As a matter of fact, the instant petition for writ is having the same relief as claimed in earlier petition for writ. This petition for writ, therefore, is also barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/