JUDGMENT Sinha, A.C.J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 12.5.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.O. No. 9127 (W) of 1990 whereby and whereunder the writ petition flied by the appellant herein was dismissed. 2. The appellant being a Constable of Border Security Force was an enrolled person within the meaning of the provisions of Border Security Force Act. He was sought to be retired on the ground of his physical Inability. He was found medically unfit by the Medical Board. However, he had filed a representation before the superior authority. The main grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant is that the said representation had not been disposed of. 3. The learned trial Judge, by reason of the Impugned order, has inter alia, held :- "In my opinion, the confirmation by the Superior Officer need not be communicated in writing. It is enough if there is a confirmation and the writ petitioner is made aware of it. In any event, the Appellate Authority in substance in these sub-rules is the Review Medical Board although the Superior Officer has theoretically power to override the decision of the Review Medical Board under sub-rule (6). That the confirmation has been made by the Superior Officer is the stand taken by the Respondents all along including in their opposition and it is not possible to say that is factually a wrong stud. Therefore, the complaints against the breach of the several sub-rules of Rule 25 are unfounded. The writ petitioner has undergone treatment for mental illness from as early as 1988. Though the Review Medical Board was to sit at the Frontier Hospital, the treatment took place at Calcutta Pavlov Hospital. The writ petitioner produced a certificate from the Calcutta Pavlov Hospital dated 23.3.90 and the certificate states that the writ petitioner can resume duties but is to be given light duty. This certificate is not germane. The Court will not decide upon mental fitness if the Review Medical Board has decided against the writ petitioner. Another certificate from any other quarter has no bearing on the legal issue of compliance with the sub-rules of Rule 25. Furthermore, I have some doubt whether the rule regarding physical fitness could be applied in all its stringency to the case of mental fitness and to orders passed for mental infirmity of an enrolled person. Another certificate from any other quarter has no bearing on the legal issue of compliance with the sub-rules of Rule 25. Furthermore, I have some doubt whether the rule regarding physical fitness could be applied in all its stringency to the case of mental fitness and to orders passed for mental infirmity of an enrolled person. It would be extremely dangerous to have arms in the hands of a person who is not in complete and absolute control of himself. It would be less dangerous to have arms with a person who is in some sort of physical disablement. In any event I have no doubt that the Rules have been substantially complied with." 4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned Counsels has drawn our attention to Rule 25 of the Border Security Force Rules, and submitted that the concerned authorities had failed to comply with the proviso appended to sub-rule (3) and sub-rules (6) and (7), and further failed to take into consideration the import and purport of sub-rule (4) thereof. 5. It has not been disputed before us that the Superior Officer had not confirmed the order passed by the Review Medical Board upon the representation filed by the appellant herein. Rule 25 of the said Rules reads thus :- “(1) Where a Commandant is satisfied that a Subedar, a Sub-Inspector or an enrolled person is unable to perform his duties by reason of any physical disability, he may direct that the said Subedar. Sub-Inspector or the enrolled person, as the case may be, to be brought before a Medical Board. (2) The Medical Board shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the Director General. (3) Where the said Subedar, Sub-Inspector or enrolled person is found by the Medical Board to be unfit for further service in the Force, as the case may be, the Commandant may, if he agrees with the finding of the Medical Board order the retirement of the Subedar, the Sub-Inspector, or as the case may be, the enrolled persons : Provided that before the said Subedar or Sub-Inspector or as the case may be, the enrolled person is so retired the finding of the Medical Board and the decision to retire him shall be communicated to him. (4) The Subedar, the Sub-Inspector or, as the case may be, the enrolled person may, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such communication, make a representation to the Officer next superior in command to the one who ordered the retirement. (5) The said Superior Officer shall have the case referred to a Review Medical Board which shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the Director General. (6) The Superior Officer may, having regard to the finding of the Review Medical Board, pass such order as he may deem fit. (7) Where a representation has been made to a Superior Officer under sub-rule (4), and order passed under sub-rule (3), shall not take effect till it is confirmed by such Superior Officer." 6. Mr. Das, in our opinion, his rightly submitted that the provisions contained in the said rule being beneficial to the employee concerned, the same should be complied with. Communication of the finding of the Medical Board appears to be mandatory one in terms of proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 25. Sub-rules (6) and (7) read combinedly empowers the Superior Officer to pass in appropriate order as he may deem fit, which in turn means that he may, in a give situation, disagree with the findings of the Medical Board. Such a power of review is in the nature of an appellate power. The words 'pass such order as he may deem fit', leave no manner of doubt that the Superior Officer has the requisite power not only to agree with the findings of the Medical Board, but also to disagree therewith, and in that view of the matter, it was obligatory on the part of the Superior Officer to pass an appropriate reasoned order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner. Such an order passed either by the Medical Board or by the Superior Officer entail a civil consequence. Superior Officer, in terms of provisions of Rule 25 act as a quasi judicial authority. Any order passed by the said authority would entail civil or evil consequence. Right to continue in service is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, See (I) D.K. Yadav v. J.M. Industries, 1993 (3) SCC 259 . Superior Officer, in terms of provisions of Rule 25 act as a quasi judicial authority. Any order passed by the said authority would entail civil or evil consequence. Right to continue in service is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, See (I) D.K. Yadav v. J.M. Industries, 1993 (3) SCC 259 . Having regard to the fact that by reason of an order passed under Rule 25, Officers mentioned therein may be deprived from their livelihood, an order passed by the said authority would be subject to the judicial review of the High Court. While exercising such power of judicial review, the High Court may enter into the question as to whether the concerned authority had followed the procedures laid down in the said provision while going through the decision making process. If principles of natural Justice had not been complied with, or if a person is not given a reasonable opportunity of making representation or order passed by a superior authority is not communicated to the concerned employee, it is not possible for him to approached this Court by filing a writ application. It is now a well settled principles of law that a statutory authority must perform his statutory duties. If a statutory authority falls and/or neglects to perform his statutory duties, the writ Court has ample jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing him to exercise his statutory functions. The High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not usurp the jurisdiction of the statutory authority, but in such a case would remit the matter back to it. In (2) State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin Mallick & Ors. reported in 1998 (8) SCC 143 , the Apex Court has held :- "It is not in dispute in this case that after the management sent its letter dated 6.8.1992 for the approval of its 31 staff viz. both teaching and non-teaching staff, both the District Inspector of Schools and the Secretary of the Board sought for certain information through their letters dated 21.9.1992. Instead of sending any reply, the management filed the writ petition in the High Court, leading to passing of the Impugned orders. Thus, till this date the appellant authorities have not yet exercised their discretion. Instead of sending any reply, the management filed the writ petition in the High Court, leading to passing of the Impugned orders. Thus, till this date the appellant authorities have not yet exercised their discretion. Submission for the respondents was that this Court itself should examine and decide the question in issue based on the material-on-record to set at rest the long-standing issue. We have no hesitation to decline such a suggestion. The Courts can either direct the statutory authorities, where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when exercised, to see whether it has been validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter." 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and keeping in view the admitted fact that the Review Medical Board has not communicated its decision, we have no other option but to hold that the learned trial Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment without taking into consideration that aspect of the matter. For the reasons aforementioned this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the writ application filed by the writ petitioner is disposed of with a direction upon the statutory authority, who might have been authorised in this behalf, to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and pass an appropriate speaking order. If the writ petitioner so desires, be may produce all materials including the medical certificate, If any, so as to enable him to show that he was not physically unfit at the relevant time to perform his duties as a constable of Border Security Force and also pray for an opportunity of being personally heard. If such a prayer is made, the superior authority, should consider the desirability of hearing the writ petitioner in person. Such all order should be passed at an early date and preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order. However, during pendency of the matter before the superior authority. It would be open to the respondents to pass appropriate order as regards grant of terminal benefits to the writ petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The appeal and the application are thus, disposed of. Ansari, J. : I agree.