JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner who was working as a Constable in the Border Security Force at Srinagar has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 27th January, 1994 by which he was dismissed from service as well as the order dated 19th August, 1998 by which his representation before the Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi was rejected. 2. It has been stated that while the petitioner was posted as a Constable at Srinagar, he was dismissed from service by the order dated 18th July, 1990 as he was absent without leave. The petitioner filed a representation dated 20th August, 1990 before the Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi, and also filed Writ Petition No. 26949 of 1990 for setting aside the order dated 18th July, 1990. An interim order was granted in this petition on 21st May, 1991 staying the operation of the order dated 18th July, 1990. The petitioner was permitted to work on the basis of the interim order but he again absented without leave as a result of which the order dated 27th January, 1994 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner moved an amendment application in the said writ petition to challenge this order also. 3. Writ Petition No. 26949 of 1990 was ultimately disposed of by this Court by the judgment and order dated 7th April, 1998 with the following observation : “....After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that there was an enquiry in respect of each of the said dismissal orders and also admitted by the petitioner did not participate in any of them. Contention of the petitioner is that he was lying ill and as such he could neither join duties nor could participate in the said enquiry. The respondents’ contention is that the petitioner did not avail of the said opportunity. Admittedly the petitioner filed an appeal against the first dismissal order and in respect of the second dismissal order the petitioner came to this Court as already this writ petition was pending. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid circumstances he was deprived of opportunity of producing evidence including the medical certificates before any of the said dismissal order was passed, although he sought relief by sending telegram. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid circumstances he was deprived of opportunity of producing evidence including the medical certificates before any of the said dismissal order was passed, although he sought relief by sending telegram. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner produced medical certificate in support of his claim at earliest opportunity before the appellate authority and the said appeal was dismissed without considering the said material. Although the respondents have contended that the appeal/representation of the petitioner had been dismissed by the appellate authority but neither the date of the order nor the copy of the said order has been disclosed by them. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the respondents are unable to show that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner were considered by the respondent No. 1, the Director General Border Security Force New Delhi. But, in the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the said medical certificates are relevant materials for deciding the issue as to whether the petitioner was really unable to join duties or to participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the appellate authority is required to consider the appeal of the petitioner along with the medical certificates. As admittedly the petitioner could not file any appeal against the second dismissal order as he had already preferred this writ petition which was then pending, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal against the second dismissal order within four weeks. If the petitioner files the appeal as above the respondents will consider the same as an appeal/representation filed within time. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the representation/appeal already filed by the petitioner against the first dismissal order as also the appeal/representation to be filed in terms of the liberty granted hereinabove in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No. 1 will communicate the order to the petitioner expeditiously. In considering the aforesaid appeals/representations the respondent No. 1 will not rely on or consider any of the findings in the order, if any, passed in the earlier appeal/representation filed by the petitioner against the first dismissal order.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The respondent No. 1 will communicate the order to the petitioner expeditiously. In considering the aforesaid appeals/representations the respondent No. 1 will not rely on or consider any of the findings in the order, if any, passed in the earlier appeal/representation filed by the petitioner against the first dismissal order.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The petitioner has been informed regarding the decision on these two representations by the communication dated 19th August, 1998. The representation filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 18th July, 1990 has been allowed, but the representation against the second dismissal order dated 27th January, 1994 has been rejected with the following observations : “....As regard your second dismissal order issued vide letter No. 1071/Estt/Dismiss/2061 dated 27th January, 1994 the Director General, BSF, after carefully considering all the points raised by you in your representation and circumstance of the case has rejected your petition being devoid of merit.” 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the petitioner was working at Srinagar where the dismissal order was passed and in support of his connection he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2002 (5) AWC 4542. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Phool Singh Chauhan v. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi and others, 2008 (1) ESC 423 and has contended that since the representation against the dismissal order dated 27th January, 1994 was sent by the petitioner from Allahabad and the impugned order dated 19th August, 1998 has also been received by the petitioner at Allahabad, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 8. In the aforesaid judgment in Phool Singh Chauhan (supra) this Court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to examine the Summary Court Martial dated 15th March, 1980 as well as the order rejecting the appeal. 8. In the aforesaid judgment in Phool Singh Chauhan (supra) this Court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to examine the Summary Court Martial dated 15th March, 1980 as well as the order rejecting the appeal. The Court noticed that the Summary Court Martial was held in the State of Gujarat where the order dismissing the petitioner from service was awarded and, therefore, came to the conclusion the cause of action to challenge the Summary court Martial punishment arose within the State of Gujarat. However, with regard to the appellate order, the Court observed : “However, the submission much pressed by Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner has sent an application to the Chief of the Army Staff from district Kanpur for taking him back in service, which was rejected and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20th May, 1986 at Kanpur (U.P.), the petitioner had cause of action to challenge the said decision of not taking him back in service before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the allegations made in paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petition, i.e., representation of the petitioner to the Chief of the Army Staff for his reinstatement on 7th October, 1985, rejection of the said request and communication at Kanpur vide letter dated 20th May, 1986 has not been denied. Thus in so far as the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 20th May, 1986 refusing reinstatement of the petitioner in service, it can be held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction since the representation was sent from Kanpur and the refusal of the same was also communicated at Kanpur.....” 9. In the present case, the representation against the second dismissal order dated 27th January, 1994 was sent by the petitioner from Allahabad and the rejection was also communicated to the petitioner at Allahabad. Thus, in view of the decision of this Court in Phool Singh Chauhan (supra), this Court would have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the order dated 19th August, 1998 in so far as it relates to the representation that had been sent by the petitioner against the second dismissal order. 10. Thus, in view of the decision of this Court in Phool Singh Chauhan (supra), this Court would have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the order dated 19th August, 1998 in so far as it relates to the representation that had been sent by the petitioner against the second dismissal order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 19th August, 1998 in so far as it relates to the rejection of the second representation should be set aside since the impugned order does not give any reason for rejecting the representation. He submitted that in view of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner it was not possible for the petitioner to join duties or participate in the enquiry but these facts have not been taken into consideration at all in the impugned order. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contended that the representation has been validly rejected. 12. A perusal of the order dated 19th August, 1998 in so far it rejects the representation filed by the petitioner against the second dismissal order dated 27th January, 1994 shows that the representation has been rejected stating that after carefully considering the points raised in the representation it is devoid of merit. The said order does not give any reason for rejecting the representation. The Director General, Border Security Force, was required to give reasons for rejecting the representation as in the absence of reasons it is not possible to ascertain what had impressed upon the Director General, Border Security Force to reject the representation. The order dated 19th August, 1998 in so far as it deals with the representation against the second dismissal order dated 27th January, 1994 cannot, therefore, be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Director General, Border Security Force, shall decide the representation by a reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed by the petitioner before the Director General, Border Security Force. 13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ———