WP(C) 4486/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. D. Das, learne d CGSC appearing for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the order dated 30.6.1997, by which he was discharged from the services of the Army on proven c harge of (a) act prejudicial to good order and Military Discipline and (b) witho ut sufficient cause over staying leave granted to him. The writ petition was fil ed in the year 2005 (17.6.2005) after about 8 years of the impugned order of dis charge. There is no explanation as to what had caused the delay in filing the wr it petition towards assailing the order of discharge dated 30.6.1997. From the materials on record, it appears that while the petition er was serving in the Army, he was tried by Summary Court Martial under Section 63 and 39 (b) of the Army Act. Both the charges having been established, he was discharged from service. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated t hat he came on leave to Assam in the year 1996 during the Assam Legislative Elec tion on 29.4.1996. When the petitioner reached home town, some CRPF personnel ch ecked the petitioner and recovered some documents from his possession. Thereafte r an FIR was lodged with the Hailakandi P.S., which was registered as Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 156/1996 corresponding to the GR Case No. 390/1996 under Section 448/419 IPC. According to the petitioner, he was suffering from various ailment and thus, he could not join and/or resume his duty after expiry of the period of leave granted to him. Certain vague statements have been made relating to the p rocedure adopted in the Summary Court Martial. However, nothing has been sown th at any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in conducting the proceeding. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have jus tified their action towards discharging the petitioner from service. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he was suffering from illness, same has been den ied by the respondents as no such intimation was ever sent to them. As per the a ffidavit, the petitioner took casual leave for 10 days and after expiry of leave so granted, he did not resume duties. During that period he was arrested by CRP F personnel and he was found to be in possession of fake identity card in the na me of Capt. K. Alwin, Special Observer, IBI, New Delhi. Certain other fake docum ents were also recovered from the petitioner. Apart from that he also over staye d leave and accordingly he was tried by the Summary Court Martial, which found h im guilty in respect of the aforesaid two charges framed against him. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have depicted the serv ice particulars of the petitioner, as per which, he was earlier also punished fo r misconduct. On 14.3.1983, he was punished with 15 days RI and on 30.5.1997 he was punished with 14 days RI. He was severely Reprimanded by order dated 16.7.19 96. According to the respondents, the punishment awarded to the petitioner comme nsurate to the gravity of the offences. The petitioner belonged to a disciplinary force. The kind of ple a he has taken to justify his unauthorized absence is not at all tenable. He cam e to Assam on 10 days casual leave, but not only overstayed the same, but also g ot himself involved in possessing fake documents. From the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that during Summary Corrupt Martial he was afforde d with all the reasonable opportunity including the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. As noted above, the petitioner has not shown any prejudice cause d to him in conducting the proceeding. This Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in 2000 (3) GLT 62 has held that unauthorized abse nce by member of the disciplined force may entail dismissal from service. That d ecision of the Divisional Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Cour t in Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309. The judgme nt of the learned Single Judge to award any other penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was reversed by the Division Bench and subseque ntly affirmed by the Apex Court. In the instant case also the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent and during that period he was arrested by CRPF personnel for possessing f ake certificates. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner, a member of the di sciplined force was wholly unwarranted and it was within the right, competence a nd jurisdiction of the authority to try him by way of Summary Court Martial in w hich, he was afforded with all the reasonable opportunities. When the charges we re established, the authority was left with no option than to discharge the peti tioner from service. There is nothing to interfere with the same. Apart from the above, as noted above, there is also delay and la tches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court by filing writ pet ition long 8 years of the order of dismissal dated 30.6.1997 without any reasona ble explanation as to what had caused the delay in filling the writ petition. Th us, on this count also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Consequentl y, the writ petition is dismissed.