Per Mansoor, J.;— 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.01.2009 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 2247/2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner came to be allowed quashing the order of his dismissal from service with effect from 31.01.2001 (hereinafter, for short, impugned judgment), on the grounds taken in it. 2. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the BSF on 24.05.1983. Vide order dated 11.01.1999 the writ petitioner was posted to 05th Bn. BSF, accordingly, he was relieved on 16.04.1999. But, instead of joining in the said battalion, the petitioner opted to remain absent till 17.05.1999 when his posting order to 05th Bn. came to be cancelled with a direction to him to resume his duty in 71 Bn. BSF through registered post. However, the writ petitioner at his will resumed his duties in the said battalion on 02.08.1999 after absenting himself without leave for a period of about 108 days, for which he was summarily tried and was awarded severe reprimand. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed SWP No. 95/2000 questioning the order dated 17.05.1999 by virtue of which his posting order to 05th Bn. came to be cancelled. The writ petition came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 09.04.2001, the appeal (LPASW No. 223/2001) too tiled against the said judgment met with the same fate and came to be dismissed on 17.04.2002. Meanwhile, the writ petitioner proceeded on 15 days casual leave with effect from 11.10.1999 to 30.10.1999. He was to resume his duties on 01.11.1999, but when he did not join his duties, he was directed to resume his duties vide three registered post letters on 04.11.1999, 18.11.1999 and 07.12.1999. When he failed to do the needful, Court of Inquiry, as warranted under the provisions of Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter, for short, the Act), was conducted vide order dated 07.12.1999 and completed by the Presiding Officer on 27.12.1999 recommending issuance of apprehension roll and a show cause notice to the writ petitioner. Thereafter the writ petitioner made three communications dated 28.12.1999,15.01.2000 and 20.01.2000 expressing his inability to join his duties on account of pain in his left leg. Thereafter the writ petitioner made three communications dated 28.12.1999,15.01.2000 and 20.01.2000 expressing his inability to join his duties on account of pain in his left leg. In communication dated 15.01.2000 he even stated that he has filed a writ petition in this Court for cancellation of his posting and till the decision arrives in the said matter he would not join his duties. After considering the response of writ petitioner, he was served with a show cause notice on 07.09.2000 under Rule 22 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter, for short, the Rules) at the address given by him when he was enrolled in the BSF and when he applied for 15 days leave, i.e., H.No.642-A, P.O. Gandhi Nagar, District Jammu (J&K). However, the respondent failed to respond; consequently, vide order dated 31.01.2001, he came to be dismissed from service in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act read with Rule 177 of the Rules. The said order was even published vide Unit Order No. Estt/71Bn/Dismiss/2001/915-1025 dated 31.01.2001. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Director General, Border Security Force against his dismissal order. However, during the pendency of said appeal, he filed SWP No. 2247/2002 questioning his dismissal order. The Writ Court allowed the same vide the judgment, impugned herein, holding that the appellants while dismissing the writ petitioner from service did not comply with the procedure as required under Rule 22 of the Rules. It was further held that it was the duty of inquiry officer as well as appellants to ensure service of show cause notice upon the writ petitioner at the given address and, in case the address was not available, then Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had to follow. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the Writ Court is not legally correct and the impugned judgment needs to be set aside for the following reasons. 4. Writ petitioner while joining his duties as also applying for 15 days casual leave had given his address as H. No. 642-A, P.O. Gandhi Nagar, District Jammu (J&K). He was to join his" duties on 01.11.1999, but he had chosen to remain absent on the ground of his ill health. 4. Writ petitioner while joining his duties as also applying for 15 days casual leave had given his address as H. No. 642-A, P.O. Gandhi Nagar, District Jammu (J&K). He was to join his" duties on 01.11.1999, but he had chosen to remain absent on the ground of his ill health. Registered letters as well as notices were served upon him at the given address, but he failed to respond. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs 7,8 & 9 of the writ petition herein. "7. That it may be mentioned here that the petitioner since his appointment in B.S.F., was residing in H. No., 642-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu along with his real brother Shri Onkar Chand Dogra, who is also a Deputy Commandant in the B. S. F. The said residential house stood in the name of the aforesaid brother of the applicant which was sold on 9th of May, 2000. The copy of the sale deed is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. 8. That the petitioner in pursuance of a family arrangements and after selling the aforesaid house, the petitioner purchased his own house on 26.04.2000 at Dilli Bye Pass (Near Kissan Floor Mill) Jammu. The petitioner as such, had shifted to his new house on 26.04.2000 and since then till date has been residing in the said house. The copy of the documents evidencing purchase of the said house by the petitioner is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure B. 9. That the respondent no. 3 is purported to have issued a show cause Notice vide No. Estt/71 Bn/SCN/2000/2126-28 dated 07.09.2000 and another show cause Notice No. Est/71Bn/SCN/2001 dated 01.01.2001 which were never received by the petitioner as the said notices were addressed to the petitioner on the previous address H. No. 642-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, where the petitioner was previously residing and thereafter the said address stood changed as stated above. Since, the petitioner did not receive the show cause notice, as such, the petitioner could not reply to the aforesaid as stated above." 5. If the petitioner had shifted to another house, it was his duty to inform his Unit about the change of his residential address, which he failed to do so. Since, the petitioner did not receive the show cause notice, as such, the petitioner could not reply to the aforesaid as stated above." 5. If the petitioner had shifted to another house, it was his duty to inform his Unit about the change of his residential address, which he failed to do so. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner has placed on record of the writ petition copy of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, executed on 20.01.2001, and the place of his residence, as has been shown in the said Attorney, is 642-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Thus, it is crystal clear that as on 20.01.2001 the writ petitioner was residing at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Further, the communication dated 01.04.2000 and the acknowledgement annexed thereto, addressed by the writ petitioner to his Unit, reveal that he had shown his place of residence as 642-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, as given in his service records. He at no point of time intimated the appellants regarding his change of address, which he otherwise was bound to do so as per the Civil Services Conduct Rules. On his own showing, the writ petitioner had shifted to his new house at Deeli, Bye Pass, Jammu, on 26.04.2000, meaning thereby that he was living at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu before the said date. Had it been so, then how he executed the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney on 20.01.2001 showing his place of residence as 642-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, when, according to him, he had already shifted to his new house at Deeli on 26.04.2000. Thus, the petitioner has been trapped in his own net because all the registered letters, notices and even the show cause notice were served to him well before 20.01.2001 at 642-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, thus leaving no room for the writ petitioner. Therefore, the plea, which the writ petitioner has taken in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, falsifies his own claim. Appellants have also denied the contents made in the said paragraph. 6. Further, it would be surprising to note that in communication dated 15.01.2000, addressed by the writ petitioner to his Unit, he even has stated that he has filed a writ petition in this Court for cancellation of his posting and till the decision arrives in the said matter he would not join his duties. 6. Further, it would be surprising to note that in communication dated 15.01.2000, addressed by the writ petitioner to his Unit, he even has stated that he has filed a writ petition in this Court for cancellation of his posting and till the decision arrives in the said matter he would not join his duties. The contents of the letter itself show his conduct and an inference can be drawn that he was aware of the inquiry proceedings. 7. Charge-sheet is generally served by post when an employee is un-authorizedly absenting himself or absconding or otherwise evading service of charge-sheet. Absconding employees many times are not available at their last known address. Naturally, the charge-sheet or other communications sent to them through office messengers would not be received by them. Documents sent by post would also be returned with postal endorsements like, "not available", "not found", "left the place", etc. Requirement of "actual service" as laid down in this judgment makes it too difficult for the disciplinary authority to proceed against an employee who may himself be evading service of charge-sheet. If an employee is not attending office, charge-sheet has to be communicated to him at his last known address. 8. This Court in case, Dr. Mohd. Hussain Wani v. State & others, 1997 KLJ 76, held that it is not expected from the employer to search for the absconding employee throughout the world in order to serve him show cause notice. The department has to serve the show cause notice at the address which was available with the employer. 9. In the given circumstances, the writ petitioner has not behaved as a member of the disciplinary force, who made all efforts to give a slip to the law, therefore, has no right to be retained in service. 10. Viewed thus, we are of the considered view that the appellants-writ respondents have followed the procedure and complied with the mandate of law while issuing registered letters, notices and show cause notice from time to time at the last known address of the writ petitioner. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment, impugned herein, along with all connected CMAs, if any, consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.