JUDGMENT By the Court.—As it comes out from the pleadings, the appellant was appointed on the post of driver in the Indo-Tibet Border Police Force (hereinafter referred to ‘’ITBP’). He joined the services on 18th December, 2013. Thereafter, he was sent for training on 30th December, 2013 in the 53rd Battalion in the establishment of RTC, Kimin. However, on 21st January, 2014, the appellant without taking permission from the Competent Authority went out of the Campus of I.T.B.P. and did not come back. vide order dated 29th March, 2014 an Inquiry Committee was constituted to find out the reasons why the appellant had remained absent. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report. It is clear that when the appellant did not come back after he absented from basic training on 21st January, 2014, vide letter dated 27th March, 2014 a request letter was sent to the concerned In-charge Police Station, District Sultanpur to arrest the appellant and bring him back to the Campus. However, neither the appellant came back himself nor was brought by the police of concerned police station. Under these circumstances, the appellant was declared ‘’deserter’ vide order dated 7th July, 2014. 2. After declaring the appellant as deserter, on 13th February, 2015 a show-cause-notice was issued by the Competent Authority that why the services of the appellant should not be terminated. The appellant did not respond to the said show-cause-notice. However, the authority concerned taking a lenient view in the matter again on 23rd December, 2015 issued a serious reprimand letter to the appellant asking him to join the duty at R.T.C., Kimin and gave warning that upon his failure to join the duty, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. This letter did not have any impact on the appellant and he again failed to join the duty. Thereafter, on 3rd January, 2016, again a serious reprimand letter was issued, asking the appellant to join the duty at R.T.C. Kimin. He was warned of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, but he again failed to join the duty. Again a similar letter was issued to him on 11th January, 2016, but the appellant again failed to respond to the letter and join the duty. 3. He was warned of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, but he again failed to join the duty. Again a similar letter was issued to him on 11th January, 2016, but the appellant again failed to respond to the letter and join the duty. 3. Under the said circumstances, again on 18th April, 2016 the appellant was declared ‘’deserter’ from service and thereafter, on 18th May, 2016 a show-cause-notice was issued to him that why his services should not be terminated. The appellant for the first time, on 19th May, 2016 responded to the show-cause-notice dated 18th May, 2016 and said that due to illness of his wife he could not join the duty and respond to the earlier show-cause-notices. 4. After considering the appellant’s representation, a lenient view was taken and vide letter dated 13th June, 2016 the appellant was informed that he was being given last chance to join the duty within a period of seven days at the Battalion Headquarter, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh and he was warned that if he failed to join the duty, as directed, his services were likely to be terminated without any notice. The appellant despite having been given long rope and lenient view by the authorities, did not join the duty, as directed, within a period of seven days. Later on the appellant went to join his duty at R.T.C., Kimin, Andhra Pradesh, but he was not allowed since his services had already been terminated in the meantime. 5. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23290 (S/S) of 2017 ‘’Wasim Ahmed v. Union of India and others’ praying therein for quashing of the order of termination of his services. 6. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2017 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant has preferred the present special appeal. 7. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri M. M. Asthana, Advocate appearing for the respondents. 8. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant has preferred the present special appeal. 7. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri M. M. Asthana, Advocate appearing for the respondents. 8. Even if it is held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petition, on merits, the appeal and the writ petition are liable to be dismissed for the reason that I.T.B.P. is a disciplined Paramilitary Force of the Central Government. Conduct of the appellant itself shows that he had least regard for discipline of the Force and he deserted his duty and despite giving warning, taking lenient view on several occasions, he failed to join the duty. This Court cannot come to rescue of such a person, who had shown so much indiscipline and deserted the services of the organization such as I.T.B.P. and despite taking lenient view by the authorities, he had failed to join the duty despite repeated warnings by authorities. It is evident from the narration of facts that the appellant had scant regard for discipline of the service and his attitude was callous throughout. Such a personnel of a paramilitary force does not deserve any indulgence of this Court in exercise of equitable and discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition as well as in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. (C.M. Application No. 45480 of 2018) 10. This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof. 12. Cause shown in the affidavit seems to be geremane. 13. the application is, accordingly, allowed. The delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 14. Let the appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.