ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) To quash the order bearing no.Legal/FTR-P/Revision/GS/Ex-CT/13th Bn/11/3050-51 dated 19.10.2011 passed by Inspector General, Frontier Head Quarter, Sashastra Seema Bal (S.S.B), Patna, whereby and whereunder revision petition filed by the petitioner against appellate order dated 18.08.2011 and dismissal order dated 27.04.2011 has been rejected in mechanical manner without considering the fact that the dismissal order has been passed by the Commandant in complete violation of principle of natural justice as well as in complete violation of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rule 2009 (hereinafter referred to as S.S.B Rule 2009) as such revisional order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be quashed by the Hon’ble Court. (ii) To quash the memorandum bearing no.X/FTR-PAT/Com-Sec/10-11/582-83 dated 18.08.2011 passed by Deputy Inspector General, Frontier HQrs, S.S.B, Patna being an Appellate Authority, whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 27.04.2011 passed by Commandant 13th Bn S.S.B, Piprakothi, has been rejected in a mechanical manner, without considering the defence of the petitioner set out in the appeal as well as without considering the fact that the dismissal order has been passed by the Commandant in violation of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 26 of S.S.B Rule 2009 and that too said dismissal order is ex-parte. As such the appellate order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be quashed by the Hon’ble Court. (iii) To quash the ex-parte office order bearing no.13th BN/ESTT/PF-GS/111-6088-6102 dated 27.04.2011 passed by Commandant, 13th BN, S.S.B, Pipra Kothi (East Champaran) whereby and whereunder petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.04.2011 in a mechanical manner, even before expiry of time granted by him vide show cause notice dated 28.03.2011 to submit his reply. Aforesaid dismissal order is bad in law, because same has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 26 of the S.S.B Rule 2009. As such aforesaid dismissal order is bad in law, disproportionate to the alleged charge levelled against the petitioner and is fit to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. As such aforesaid dismissal order is bad in law, disproportionate to the alleged charge levelled against the petitioner and is fit to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. (iv) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as punishment of dismissal is to excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. (v) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs to the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may think it proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that after completing the rigorous test for the post of constable (GD) in Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the S.S.B.’ for the sake of brevity), he was duly selected and appointed and was finally posted as such in 27th Battalion, S.S.B., Bihar vide Memo dated 29.10.2005 and accordingly he joined on 15.12.2005 in the training centre, Gorakhpur. It was also claimed that after completion of the training he performed his duty with full satisfaction of his higher authorities and while he was posted at 13th Battalion Pipra Kothi, (East Champaran) Bihar, he was directed to complete six months bugler course at P.R.T.C., Jahan Khelan (Punjab) vide order dated 29.09.2010. In compliance thereof he joined the said training centre on 04.10.2010 and during the said period of training the petitioner proceeded on five days casual leave with effect from 07.10.2010 and after completion of leave he joined the centre on 27.10.2010. It was further claimed that the petitioner again proceeded on two days casual leave with effect from 05.11.2010 to 06.11.2010 to see his mother, who was seriously ill due to leg problems but thereafter he did not join. 3. It was further claimed that the petitioner again proceeded on two days casual leave with effect from 05.11.2010 to 06.11.2010 to see his mother, who was seriously ill due to leg problems but thereafter he did not join. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that while he was in train on 05.11.2010 he became unconscious at Kanpur Railway Station due to which he was admitted in Sanjiwani Hospital, Unnao and remained there till his improvement and ultimately he was released from hospital on 08.11.2010 when he returned to his house at Unnao (Utter Pradesh) and there he was treated in the Primary Health Centre, Safipur, Unnao till 05.12.2010 and while he was returning to his duties on 16.12.2010 he met with motorcycle accident resulting in right shoulder fracture due to which he was hospitalized in Primary Health Centre, Safipur, Unnao and remained under treatment till 22.04.2011 when he was found medically fit to resume his duty. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that in the meantime the Commandant issued show-cause notice dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure-8) to the petitioner directing him to submit his explanation in writing and defence with respect to the allegations levelled against him within one month as to why not action to dismiss him from service for the said misconduct should be initiated. It was also averred that due to his injury he could not file his show-cause and the Commandant 13th Battalion, S.S.B. Pipra Kothi, (East Champaran) passed order dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure-3) dismissing the petitioner from service in a mechanical manner even before expiry of the time granted by him for filing show-cause. 5. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2011 (Annexure-2) passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, S.S.B. Patna. The said appellate order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure-10), but the said revision was also dismissed by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, S.S.B.,, Patna vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure-1). 6. The said appellate order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure-10), but the said revision was also dismissed by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, S.S.B.,, Patna vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure-1). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the medical certificates (Annexure 5 series) of the petitioner as well as the death certificate of petitioner’s father dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure-6) clearly showed the reasons of his absence, whereas for granting a punishment of dismissal the petitioner had to be willfully absent, but no such finding had been given by the authorities nor they produced any such material in that regard, hence according to him the impugned order was absolutely illegal in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 178. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claimed that the authorities while passing the impugned orders violated the principles laid down in Rule 26 (2) of the S.S.B. Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the sake of brevity) by dismissing the petitioner and closing all his future prospects. It was further claimed that even the show-cause notice was not in consonance with the aforesaid Rules as one month was required for appearance, but the order of termination was passed by the authorities concerned much within that time. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Commandant, who passed petitioner’s order of dismissal dated 27.04.2011, did not give any appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to place his case, whereas the appellate and revisional authority before whom the petitioner had presented his case did not consider the pleadings and documents produced by the petitioner nor did they apply independent mind although they were quasi judicial authorities legally obliged to pass specific order considering the fact, but in the instant case they miserably failed to do this. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court and two decisions of the High Court, in case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kathagudem vs. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 469; in case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, reported in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 204; in case of Vijay Chandra Thakur vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) P.L.J.R. 192 ; and in case of Ramanand Jha vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in 2010 (3) P.L.J.R. 177 . 9. The next point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was the quantum of punishment regarding which it was claimed that the authorities did not consider that the absence of the petitioner was not intentional, rather the same had occurred due to prolonged illness of the petitioner which cannot be treated as gross misconduct on his part and if the respondents had any doubt regarding his illness, the same could have been verified by them but without verification the petitioner had been given the highest punishment of termination which was not in accordance with the principle laid down in that regard by the Hon’ble Apex court in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., reported in 2010 (1) P.L.J.R. (SC) 19 and in case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors., reported in 2004 (2) P.L.J.R. (SC) 208. Hence he claimed that the action against the petitioner was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner had admitted that after joining the training centre i.e. P.R.T.C., Jahan Khelan (Punjab) on 04.10.2010 the petitioner proceeded on five days casual leave with effect from 07.10.2010, whereafter he should have joined on 12.10.2010 but he joined the training centre much belatedly on 27.10.2010. He also stated that in the next month also i.e. November, 2010 the petitioner went on two days casual leave with effect from 05.11.2010 to 06.11.2010 but he did not report on 07.11.2010 or even thereafter nor he sent any application or information to the authorities in that regard. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that all medical certificates etc. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that all medical certificates etc. produced by the petitioner as Annexure-5 series were absolutely frivolous and unreliable as no paper of treatment had been produced by the petitioner. He averred that in the period of ailment claimed by the petitioner, there were several gaps which had remained unexplained and considering his absence without any information the petitioner had been declared ‘Deserter’ by the Commandant vide order dated 05.03.2011 (Annexure-7). 12. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that a bare perusal of order of petitioner’s termination dated 27.04.2011 clearly showed that the said authority had appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and had passed a well considered order, whereas the appellate and revisional authorities also considered the claim of the petitioner and the materials on record before affirming the petitioner’s order of termination. Hence, he averred that the claim of the petitioner was absolutely frivolous and misconceived and was fit to be rejected. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the authorities concerned have passed specific orders considering the facts of the case and the materials on record and they clearly show that the authorities had applied their independent minds and had decided the original matter as well as the appellate and revisional matters. Hence the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kathagudem (supra); in case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra); in case of Vijay Chandra Thakur (supra); and in case of Ramanand Jha (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 14. So far the question of willful or otherwise absence of the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent from the documents attached to this writ petition that the petitioner did not produce any prescription, hospital papers, receipts or vouchers to show the genuineness of his claim, rather he only attached a few medical certificates from some doctors of Safipur, Unnao of Utter Pradesh, which do not inspire confidence rather they merely show that the petitioner was suffering from typhoid, gastritis and frozen shoulder only. None of them shows that the petitioner had any effect of poisoning on train or had any fracture due to motorcycle accident as had been claimed by the petitioner. None of them shows that the petitioner had any effect of poisoning on train or had any fracture due to motorcycle accident as had been claimed by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioner to remain absent from his duties from November, 2010 till April, 2011 merely due to such minor problems as typhoid, gastritis or frozen shoulder. 15. Furthermore, from the statement of the petitioner himself made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition he was physically fit on 05.12.2010 to resume his duty but he did not join immediately thereafter and claimed that on 16.12.2010 he met with motorcycle accident resulting in fracture of right shoulder but no document has been produced by the petitioner to explain his absence from 05.12.2010 till 15.12.2010 or to show any such fracture which clearly proved the falsity of his statement given on affidavit before this court. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that the petitioner was willfully absent from his service for several months during which period he did not even care to inform the authorities concerned or to file any application for explanation of leave. Hence the nature of job on which the petitioner was appointed clearly provided that such persons were not entitled to continue with the force which was meant to safeguard the boundary of our nation. In such situation the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. (supra) as well as in case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya (supra) are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. So far the provision of Rule-26 of the Rules is concerned, it does not provide any time limit for waiting for the show-cause of the person to whom notices had been issued, ordinarily it can be within 14 days or in some exceptional cases it can also be within 30 days. In the instant case the authority concerned has passed its order when even on the 30th day after the notice, petitioner did not submit his show-cause i.e. from 28.03.2011 when notice was issued and excluding that date 30 days were completed on 27.04.2011 but admittedly even on 27.04.2011 no show-cause was filed and hence the authority concerned was quite justified in passing the said order. 18. 18. Thus in any view of the matter this Court does not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.