JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Heard. Order Annexure P-1, whereby the third respondent has discharged the petitioner from service, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner was enrolled in Shashastra Seema Bal, a para military force against the post of CT/GD in the year 1999. 2. The allegations against the petitioner as disclosed from the perusal of show cause notice Annexure P-4 read as follows:- 1. U/s 24(e) Neglects to obey any general, local other order:- In that, during Sainik Sammelan & in roll call, it is clearly ordered that no personnel of this unit will consume liquor/intoxicated substances during duty time. But on dated 27/08/2014, being a CHM of ''B'' Coy and as well QRT commander for same day you had consumed liquor during Roll Call parade. 2. U/s 29 (2) Intoxication:-In that on 27/08/2014, being CHM of ''B'' Coy and as well as QRT Commander for that day, you had consumed intoxicated material during roll call parade and also behaved in a disorderly manner with Coy Commander Sh. Prateek Gupta, AC. 3. U/S 22(c) Use Insubordination language to such officer- In that on 27/08/2014 at about 2100 hrs, when Coy Commander Sh. Prateek Gupta went to your barrack and found you influenced with alcohol and when he had asked you the reason of consuming liquor during roll call, in reply, you had used insubordinate language and abuse the Coy Commander. 4. 21(f) When in camp or elsewhere, if found beyond any limits fixed or in any place prohibited, by any general, local or other order, without a pass or written leave from his superior officer- In that on 28/08/2014, you had tried to abscond from the campus of your Coy and had caught by the Coy personnel nearby BOP, Kawabari at No Man''s land. Whereas you had pleaded guilty before the commandant, 59th Bn. SSB, Nanpara for the sections framed against you. On which Commandant, 59th Bn SSB has detailed a Board of Members to examine/scrutinize your previous service record. Whereas, Board of Members have examined/scrutinize your previous service record and while checking your past record, it is found that you were enrolled in SSC on 22/09/1999 to the post of CT/GD in GC SSB, Dharampur. During your entire service of 15 years (approx) the following adverse entries were found in your service book. Whereas, Board of Members have examined/scrutinize your previous service record and while checking your past record, it is found that you were enrolled in SSC on 22/09/1999 to the post of CT/GD in GC SSB, Dharampur. During your entire service of 15 years (approx) the following adverse entries were found in your service book. 1) While undergoing JCC w.e.f. 20/12/2006 to 22/02/2007 at Coy Hqr, Kamlapuri, you were given permission to avail 01 day station leave dated 11.02/2007, but you failed to report back at Coy Hqr, on due date to undergo JCC. You remained absent/missing w.e.f. 12/02/2007 to 16/02/2007 till 2130 hrs and returned back to your quarter at Palia on 16/02/2007 about 2130 hrs. Punishment awarded- On cancellation of station leave, OSL period regularized by granting 06 days EOL, 07 days quarter Guard w.e.f. 14/03/2007 to 20/03/2007 with forfeiture of pay and allowances. 2) While undergoing JCC at SSB ''F'' Coy Kamlapuri Hqr, you had absconded on 28/05/2007 at about 0545 hrs without any information/permission from the competent authority and was found in near village-Govind Nagar on 29/05/2007 at about 1330 hrs. Punishment awarded Awarded Censure 3) While posted at ''E'' Coy, 4th Bn SSB, Palia Kalan, you had absconded from unit Campus without permission of the competent authority on 05/06/2007. Punishment awarded- 318 days OSL period regularized by granting of 155 days EL w.e.f. 25/09/2007 to 06/02/2008 and 163 days EOL (without MC) w.e.f. 07/02/2008 to 19/07/2008 and 28 days extra guard duty. 4) You were detailed with ''D'' Coy, 13th Batch BRTC for instructional duty but you had absconded from SSB campus Gorakhpur on 06/03/2013 without permission or intimation to competent authority on 06/03/2013 at 1435 hrs. Punishment awarded 08 days confinement to the line. 5) You were detailed to perform Guard Commander at RP Gate (Recruits Line) but you had absconded from RTC SSB, Gorakhpur campus on 06/07/2013 without permission or information to the competent authority on the same day at about 0600 hrs You had reported willingly at RTC SSB, Gkp on 10/07/2013 at about 1000 hrs after absenting yourself by 04 days. Punishment Awarded- Severe reprimand and absence period regularized by granting 04 days EOL (NQS) 6) You had absconded from RTC, SSB Gorakhpur on 04/10/2013 at 1530 hrs without intimation/prior permission and willingly reported at RTC Gorakhpur on 11/10/2013 at 1800 hrs after absenting yourself by 07 days. Punishment Awarded- Severe reprimand and absence period regularized by granting 04 days EOL (NQS) 6) You had absconded from RTC, SSB Gorakhpur on 04/10/2013 at 1530 hrs without intimation/prior permission and willingly reported at RTC Gorakhpur on 11/10/2013 at 1800 hrs after absenting yourself by 07 days. Punishment Awarded- Absconded period regularized by granting him 07 days EOL (NQS) 7) You had been dealt with under section 21 (f) of SSB Act'' 2007 (Absent without leave) . In that while you were performing the duty as mess commander of SO''s mess at Bn hqr and had absconded from campus area w.e.f. 24/10/2013 (FN) at about 0600 hrs without intimation or permission of the competent authority and you were found at railway station Gorakhpur on 30/10/2013 (AN) at about 0830 hrs by the searching party after 07 days. You had pleaded guilty of the charge framed against you. Punishment Awarded- Awarded reprimand and absconded period regularized by granting 07 days EOL. 8) While performing the guard duty as HC/GD at Unit MI Room, you had left the campus area on 06/12/2013 at about 1730 hrs without prior intimation/permission of the competent authority and willingly reported back to Bn Hqr on 10/12/13 at about 0600 hrs after absenting yourself by 03 days. Punishment Awarded- Awarded 14 days pay fine and 03 days absconded period regularized by granting 03 days EOL without MC. 9) On dated 16/09/2014, you had absconded from the campus of Bn Hqr and after absenting yourself by 71 days, you had willingly reported at 59th Bn. Hqr on 26/11/2014. Punishment Awarded- Awarded "Severe Reprimand" and absent period of 71 days regularized by granting 71 days EOL (NQS) ." 3. It is in this background the competent authority i.e. third respondent had formed an opinion that he is habitual to abscond from duty and despite repeated warnings and imposing punishments, no improvement in his conduct and behaviour could be noticed. The third respondent further formed an opinion that he is not suitable for further retention in service, therefore, vide show cause notice Annexure P-4, the penalty for termination of his service under Rule 26 of SSB Rule 2009 was proposed to be imposed upon him, however, before that he was called upon to submit his explanation by 30th June, 2015. 4. 4. The reply Annexure P-5 to the writ petition amply demonstrates that the petitioner has admitted all allegations of misconduct and misbehaviour attributed to him in the show cause notice, however, requested the third respondent not to terminate his services keeping in view the adverse family circumstances comprising his wife, children and old father and thereby to give one opportunity to improve his behaviour. 5. The third respondent, on consideration of the allegations against the petitioner and reply to the show cause notice as submitted and affording him opportunity of being heard, has ordered to discharge (remove) him from service with effect from the date of impugned order Annexure P-1 i.e. 21.3.2015. He was directed to submit the documents perhaps required in the matter of sanction of service benefits. 6. Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate learned counsel representing the petitioner though has fairly conceded the past conduct of the petitioner as is apparent from the record, however, in the matter of the penalty imposed upon him, he has strenuously contended that the same does not commensurate viz-a-viz the so called misconduct attributed to the petitioner. According to Mr. Rai, in view of the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, lenient view should have been taken in the matter and instead of discharging him straightway from service, he should have been given an opportunity to mend his behaviour and become a law abiding public servant. In the alternative he should have been dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 21(f) and 24(e) of ''The Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007'', hereinafter referred to as the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel while drawing our attention to the record and also the provisions contained under Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Act has strenuously contended that the competent authority when arrived at a conclusion that it is not in the interest of the ''Bal'', the impugned order Annexure P-1 has rightly been passed. 8. We have carefully analyzed the entire record and also the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties on both sides. Besides, the allegations against him taken note of in para supra, the petitioner even after submitting the reply Annexure P-5 to the show cause notice, also absconded on 14.3.2015, at such a stage when the matter was under active consideration of the third respondent. Besides, the allegations against him taken note of in para supra, the petitioner even after submitting the reply Annexure P-5 to the show cause notice, also absconded on 14.3.2015, at such a stage when the matter was under active consideration of the third respondent. He absconded from duty after undertaking not to repeat any mistake in future. After submission of the reply Annexure P-5, he firstly absconded on 12.3.2015, when proceeded to Nepal side at 08.00 hours from Border Pillar No.61 under 59 Battalion, Nanpara and was found in the state of intoxication at about 13.30 hours. Not only this, but again he has absconded on 14.3.2015 and remained absent from duty upto 20.3.2015, for six days. When he was available on 21.3.2015, the opportunity of being heard was given to him and the impugned order came to be passed on that day. 9. The record of this case amply demonstrates that the petitioner is habitual of absenting from duties. He absented from duties without leave and reasonable cause on dozen of occasions. He failed to improve his conduct and behaviour despite imposition of penalty and reprimanded on several occasions. True it is that such absence from duty is an offence within the meaning of Sections 21(f) and 24(e) and also Section 29(1) of the Act and he could have been tried for the commission of such offence by own Court of the force and sentenced including to undergo imprisonment, however, at the same time Rule 26 empowers the competent authority, the Commanding Officer of the Battalion, where the delinquent official was serving at the relevant time, to have retired him compulsorily from service, of course, after obtaining option from the delinquent official either to seek retirement or tender his resignation. 10. In view of the overall acts, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, the course i.e. his discharge from service has rightly been chosen by the competent authority i.e. The Commandant 59th Battalion, SSB Nanpara. The petitioner, in our considered opinion, is not a fit person to be retained in service, however, as required under Rule 26(2) , before resorting to discharge of the petitioner from service, option from him, either to seek retirement or tender resignation should have been given. The impugned order reveals that no such option has been given to him. The petitioner, in our considered opinion, is not a fit person to be retained in service, however, as required under Rule 26(2) , before resorting to discharge of the petitioner from service, option from him, either to seek retirement or tender resignation should have been given. The impugned order reveals that no such option has been given to him. Therefore, the impugned order though is upheld; however, the same is modified to the extent that the competent authority i.e. third respondent shall seek option from the petitioner, which he has either to send in writing within a month from today or by appearing in person on or before 31st July, 2018 along with certified copy of this judgment. In the event of the option in the manner as aforesaid is exercised, the third respondent shall modify the impugned order accordingly. In case no option is exercised well within the time granted, the impugned order shall remain inforce for all intents and purposes. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s) , if any.