SANJEEV KUMAR,J. - (1.)This intra-Court Appeal is directed against judgment dtd. 8/6/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ["the Writ Court"] in SWP No. 706/2004 titled "Sandeep Singh vs. Union of India and others" whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
(2.)Briefly put, the facts, leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant came to be enrolled as Constable in Border Security Force ["BSF"] in April, 1986 and was subsequently promoted as Head Constable on 3/1/2003. He was, however, dismissed from service by the Deputy Inspector General of BSF vide his order No. Estt/SS/DISM/04/186-386 dtd. 3/1/2004 on the charge of his unauthorized absence from duty for 39 days w.e.f 2/10/2003 to 9/11/2003. Prior to his dismissal from service, the appellant had been awarded three punishments; on two occasions under Sec. 19 (a) and on one occasion under Sec. 19(b) of Border Security Force Act, 1968 ["the Act of 1968"]. The appellant was reprimanded for an act punishable under Sec. 19(a) of the Act of 1968 for remaining absent without leave w.e.f 1/10/1991 to 2/10/1991. He was administered severe reprimand again for remaining absent without leave w.e.f 8/4/1999 to 6/6/1999. The appellant again overstayed his leave without any sufficient cause by six days w.e.f 5/4/2001 to 24/4/2001 and was awarded severe reprimand yet again.
(3.)On 2/10/2003, the appellant absented himself from the campus of SHQ-CI OPS Rawalpora without any leave or authority and remained absent for 39 days. He joined back his duty voluntarily on 9/11/2003. During his absence without leave, the respondents vide letter dtd. 9/10/2003 intimated to the appellant to join duty forthwith and was warned of disciplinary action, should he fail to join forthwith. The appellant, however, joined his duty on 9/11/2003 thereby remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty for 39 days at his own. On joining the duty, an explanation was sought from the appellant to for remaining absent without leave or prior permission of the competent Authority vide letter dtd. 10/11/2003. The appellant submitted his explanation in writing and submitted that due to his brother"s death, some relatives had come to meet him and since he was urgently required at his home to complete certain documentary work, as such, he left the campus along with his relatives. The explanation offered by the appellant was not found satisfactory by the competent Authority and, accordingly, a decision was taken to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant under the statutory provisions of the Act of 1968 and the rules framed thereunder.
;