JUDGMENT 1. The instant civil special appeal (writ) has been filed by the appellant-petitioner under Article 225 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment dated 3.3.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.4239/1999 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 19.5.1999. 2. As per brief facts stated in the writ petition by the petitioner-appellant when he was working with Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the BSF for short) in Rajasthan in the year 1997, due to illness he was remained in for treatment to the Civil Hospital for few days and after declaring fit by the Civil Hospital, when back to report on duty he was not taken on duty. On 7.3.1998 the appellant-petitioner again reported to be sick in the quarters of BSF and was referred for surgery on 9.3.1998 to the Civil Hospital at Bikaner where he was kept under continuous treatment from 10.4.1998 to 12.7.1998. The Civil Hospital, Bikaner declared him fit and directed to report to his unit but according to the petitioner-appellant he met with serious accident, therefore, admitted to the SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur where operation was done to repair his fractured leg and, thereafter, discharged on 18.7.1998 by the hospital. The petitioner-appellant further stated in the writ petition that he remained under constant and continuous treatment of SMS Medical College and Hospital till 20.3.1999 and declaring fit to resume the duty on 23.7.1999. During the period of treatment a show cause notice was given by the respondent to the petitioner-appellant on 1.12.1997 and again fresh show cause notice was given on 21.1.1999 stating therein that you remained absent without leave from 25.7.1997. According to the petitioner-appellant reply was filed b^ him along with the documents in response to show cause notice, but vide order dated 19.5.1999 while exercising powers under Section 11(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1968 for short) read with rule 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1969 for short) he was dismissed from service illegally without holding any regular inquiry. 3. 3. In the reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner-appellant was enrolled in BSF on 28.11.1994 as a Constable (Radio Operator) and he was detailed to undergo ORL Grade-Ill S.No.299 w.e.f. 18.12.1995 to 7.9.1996 at STS II FSF, Banglore, but he failed in above course. On 6.1.1997 the appellant-petitioner proceeded on earned leave of 60 days for his marriage w.e.f. 7.1.1997 to 7.3.1997 but he failed to rejoin the duty on 8.3.1997 and reported on 16.5.1997 after over stay of 69 days. It is also pleaded in para (A) of the reply that for such offence, the petitioner-appellant was awarded 21 days rigorous imprisonment in force custody w.e.f. 11.6.1997 to 1.7.1997. 4. As per the reply of the respondents, when the petitioner-appellant was going to the unit quarter guard, he again absented himself without leave from the unit lines with the pretext of meal and to bring his bedding etc. and he was brought back to the unit by his father after 36 days of absence without leave on 16.7.1997. Due to above absence without leave, the -appellant was put into the quarter guard for undergoing period of RI on 25.7.1997 at about 20.45f hours but he again absented himself without leave from unit quarter guard on the same day which is 24.7.1997. 5. A court of inquiry was also conducted to investigate the circumstances of his desertion/absenting without leave w.e.f. 25.7.1997 and show cause notice was given to join the duty at earliest but he did not avail said opportunity. An apprehension roll was also issued to the concerned police authority at so many times to apprehend the petitioner. The petitioner-appellant submitted medical documents for his treatment which is prescription on 7.3.1998, 8.3.1998, 9.3.1998, 10.3.1998, 14.3.1998, 20.3.1998, 5.5.1998, 11.6.1998, 13.7.1998, 14.7.1998 to 18.7.1998 and medical certificate w.e.f. 9.3.1998 to 5.4.1998 respectively. Admittedly, after treatment he should have reported the duty but he did not report for duty and remained absent without leave. As per the reply filed by the respondents, he managed to prepare a false prescription form of the unit MI room without consulting unit medical officer. The discharge certificate was issued by the SMS Medical College and Hospital was not found proper as there was corrections in date regarding his fitness. As per the reply filed by the respondents, he managed to prepare a false prescription form of the unit MI room without consulting unit medical officer. The discharge certificate was issued by the SMS Medical College and Hospital was not found proper as there was corrections in date regarding his fitness. Meaning thereby, as per the respondents the petitioner-appellant remained absent for 659 days without leave, therefore, after considering all the circumstances, the termination order was passed on 19.5.1999 by the Commandant, 126 BN, BSF. 6. The learned Single Judge after considering all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants dismissed the writ petition and held that in facts and circumstances of the case the Commandant has rightly exercised its power vested under Section 11(2) read with rule 177 to terminate the appellant-petitioner from service after issuing the show cause notice to him in terms thereof and considered all the documents submitted by the appellant. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of dismissal and dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 3.3.2015. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is erroneous because for the charge of absent from duty under Section 62 of BSF Act read with Section 173 of the Rules of 1969 a court of inquiry was to be held but contrary to the provisions of law the Commandant passed an order of dismissal while exercising power under Section 11(2) of Act of 1968 and rule 177 of the 1969 rules, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge upholding the action of Commandant deserves to be quashed.It is also contended that the relevant documents relied upon were not supplied to the petitioner-appellant so as to defend his case, therefore, on this ground also, the decision of the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 8. 8. Lastly it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that for alleged misconduct of absent from duty without sanction of leave it was obligatory duty of the respondent BSF to conduct proper inquiry as per provisions of law and principle of natural justice but the learned Single Judge although observed in the judgment that petitioner-appellant has not been dismissed under Section 32 of the BSF Act on account of remaining absent from duty, but on account of mis-conduct by invoking Section 11(2) of the Act of 1968 read with rule 22 and 177 of the Rules of 1969, therefore, if dismissal was not passed upon allegation to remain absent from duty, then obviously for misconduct the regular inquiry was to be conducted, therefore, the finding given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we have minutely scanned the entire facts and documents annexed with the writ petition upon which finding is based, so also, the reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition and the rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 which reads as under: "22. Dismissal or removal of persons other than officers on account of mis-conduct.- (1) When it is proposed to terminate the service of a person subject to the Act other than an officer, he shall be given an opportunity by the authority competent to dismiss or remove him, to show cause in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) against such actions Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply - (a) where the service is terminated on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a criminal court or a Security Force Court; or (b) where the competent authority is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not expedient or reasonably practicable to give the person concerned an opportunity or showing cause. (2) When after considering the reports on the mis-conduct of the person concerned, the competent authority is satisfied that the trial of such a person is inexpedient or impracticable, but, is of the opinion that his further retention in the service is undesirable, it shall so inform him together with all reports adverse to him and he shall be called upon to submit, in writing, his explanation and defence: Provided that the competent authority may withhold from disclosure any such report or portion thereof, if, in his opinion its disclosure is not in the public interest. (3) The competent authority after considering his explanation and defence if any may dismiss or remove him from service with or without pension: Provided that a Deputy Inspector General shall not dismiss or remove from service, a Subordinate Officer of and above the rank of a Subedar. (4) All cases of dismissal or removal under this rule, shall be reported to the Director General." 10. Admittedly, in the reply filed by the respondents BSF the conduct of the petitioner-appellant since his appointment was narrated but no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner with regard to the allegation of misconduct. In our opinion, when there is power left under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 with the competent authority that retention of an employee in service is undesirable then such power can be exercised by the competent authority to pass an order after informing the employee all adverse reports to him and to call upon to submit in writing his explanation in defence and in this case, admittedly, two show cause notices were given to the petitioner-appellant for the alleged misconduct to remain absent from duty without leave and in pursuance of that certain medical prescriptions and documents were submitted by the appellant, but no rejoinder to the reply to para nos. A and B of the writ petition was submitted by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, therefore, in our view, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that it is a case in which Commandant has exercised its power under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 so as to terminate the appellant-petitioner from service. A and B of the writ petition was submitted by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, therefore, in our view, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that it is a case in which Commandant has exercised its power under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 so as to terminate the appellant-petitioner from service. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Gauranga Chakraborty v. State of Tripura reported in (1989) 3 SCC 314 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Umesh Kumar Malik, DBSAW No.1033 of 1997 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered in Ex.CT Sanjay Singh v. Union of India W.P.(C) 6123 of 1999 decided on 9.2.2012 in which it has been held that power exercised by the Commandant under Section 11(2) read with rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 is nothing but it is the power of security force for dealing with the official such as absent from duty without leave. 11. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that in every Security Force discipline is must and facts of this case loudly speaks that appellant is guilty of committing serious misconduct of absent from duty, so also, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the fact that any application was filed by the appellant-petitioner to sanction the leave, although certain documents are produced by him to show that he was medically unfit and was under treatment, but as per reply filed by the respondents in addition to the period in which he remained under treatment, he remained absent without sanction of leave. The Legislature purposely inserted the rule 22 (2) of the Rules of 1969 in which a power has been given to the competent authority to dispense with the regular inquiry and to remove any person on the basis of reports on a misconduct of the person concerned to remain will ful absent on duty. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Mohammed Ayub Naz reported in 2006 I AD (SC) 208 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to many other precedents has held that absenteeism from office for prolong period of time without prior permission by the Government servant has become a principal cause of indiscipline which have greatly affected various Government servants. It is also held that in order to mitigate the rampant absenteeism and will full absence from service without intimation to the Government the Government has promulgated a rule that if the Government servant remains will fully absent for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of will ful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service. The Supreme Court held that the order of removal from service passed in the said case was the only proper punishment to be awarded in view of the fact that Government servant was absent from duty for long period without intimation to the Government. Ram Pal (supra) is also a case where action was taken by the respondents under the provisions of Section 11(2). In the said decision it was held that once a show cause notice is issued recording tentative opinion as required, nothing further was required to be done in the said case as the employee did not reply to the notice. Therefore it was held that as there was no denial of the allegation nor was there any request for holding an inquiry, therefore the action taken is justified. 12. Facts of the said case is similar to the facts of the case in hand and therefore we are bound by the ratio of the aforesaid decisions which laid down the law. In terms of the said decisions, we have no other option but to hold that the petitioner-appellant has failed to make out any case for interference. 13. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that rule does not reveal that holding an inquiry is a prerequisite to an order dismissing or removing a person from service on the ground of misconduct. 13. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that rule does not reveal that holding an inquiry is a prerequisite to an order dismissing or removing a person from service on the ground of misconduct. The competent authority is required to consider the reports of misconduct and after recording satisfaction if it is found that for the retention of an employee in service would be undesirable then competent authority can pass an order for his dismissal. We are in full agreement with the finding given by the learned Single Judge while following the judgment rendered in the case of Gauranga Chakraborty v. State of Tripura, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 314 . Therefore, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the order of termination dated 19.5.1999 passed by the Commandant, 126 consequently this special appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******