JUDGMENT : 1. On the strength of grounds tailored in the petition, the petitioner seeks the following main relief:- “i. To quash Order dated 16.1.2002 issued by Commandant, 172 Bn., BSF, by which respondent No. 5 has dismissed the petitioner from service w.e.f. 16.01.2002 under the provisions of Section 11 (2) of BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 177 of BSF Rules, 1969, and also to quash the departmental proceedings (if any done) and the Charges (if any) framed against the petitioner, by issuance of Writ of Certiorari; ii. To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for reinstatement and to allow the petitioner to resume/perform his duties against the post of Constable, on which he was 2 SWP No.635/2004 working prior to issuance of impugned order, by issuance of Writ of Mandamus; iii. To issue directions to the respondents to release the salary of petitioner and to give all other consequential benefits to which he is entitled to, as also to treat the period of petitioner w.e.f. 30.07.2001 to 16.01.2002 as „on duty? by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus; iv. To issue directions to the respondents restraining them to treat the period w.e.f. 30.07.2001 till the date of joining on duty as „break in service? by issuance of Writ of Prohibition.” 2. The facts in brief as projected in the writ petition are as follows:- Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 18.04.1991 and was allotted No. 911630819. After serving various other Units, he joined 172 Battalion, BSF on 24.07.1996 on permanent posting and was posted to Motor Transport Platoon as Constable Driver. It is contended that he was granted 15 days? casual leave with effect from 09.07.2001 to 25.07.2001 on account of marriage of his sister and was supposed to report back to the Battallion on 29.07.2001. He, with the intention to join his duties left home on 27.07.2001 for Trivulla Railway Station to board the Madras Mail Train. Accordingly, he boarded the train from Trivulla on 27.07.2001, however, he has no knowledge what happened on the way and when regained conscious he found himself admitted in the Government Ayurveda College and Hospital, Trivandrum, Trivandrum. He remained under treatment of Dr. K.T. George (Ay) Professor, in the aforesaid hospital from 20.09.2001 to 30.09.2003 and the said doctor advised him to take medicines for six months. He remained under treatment of Dr. K.T. George (Ay) Professor, in the aforesaid hospital from 20.09.2001 to 30.09.2003 and the said doctor advised him to take medicines for six months. Thereafter, during treatment, his mental health got deteriorated, due to family problem as his wife left him in the ailing condition which contributed him to mental shock and agony. Thus, he could not report back to his duties on the scheduled date i.e., 29.07.2001. He approached the respondent No.5 i.e., Commandant 172 Bn. B.S.F on 03.10.2003 by filing a representation requesting therein to resume duties in light of medical certificate dated 30.09.2003 issued by Dr. K.T. George (Ay.), who declared the petitioner fit to resume duties. However, after two months, the respondent No.5 informed the petitioner vide communication No: Estt./Re-Instate/172/03 THQ 172 Bn., dated 03-12-2003 that he has been dismissed from service with effect from 16.01.2002, which shocked him and the order of dismissal was also not supplied to him, therefore according to the petitioner, in the given circumstances he could not join his duties. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the act of the respondents by filing the present petition on the basis of grounds adapted by him and sought indulgence of this Court for grant of aforementioned relief. 4. After notice, respondents have filed the response resisting therein the claim of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the writ record as well as the original record submitted by the respondents. 6. It is contended in the objections that the petitioner remained absent from duty without obtaining sanctioned leave from the competent authority for a period of 68 days, w.e.f 08.05.1999 to 15.07.1999, for which he was awarded 28 days RI in force custody. It is also contended that the petitioner again proceeded on 15 days casual leave w.e.f 09.07.2001 to 25.07.2001 and had to join his duties on 29.07.2001 after availing three days? more time i.e., upto 28.07.2001, however, he neither joined his duty nor sent any requisition for extension of leave. Over this issue, respondents sent a registered letter bearing No.Estt/OSL/172/2001/8726 dated 04.10.2001 at petitioner?s home address but the said letter returned back undelivered with the two remarks of the postal authorities viz., the addressee is “out of station” and “left station and present address not known”. Over this issue, respondents sent a registered letter bearing No.Estt/OSL/172/2001/8726 dated 04.10.2001 at petitioner?s home address but the said letter returned back undelivered with the two remarks of the postal authorities viz., the addressee is “out of station” and “left station and present address not known”. It is further contended that again an Apprehension roll to Superintendent of Police District Pathanamthitte, Kerala was sent vide communication dated 04.10.2001 through registered letter to the petitioner, which too remained un-delivered and un-responded by the petitioner by not reporting back to the Unit for discharge of his duties. It is also contended that in response to aforesaid communication dated 04.10.2001, the Police Station Pulikeezhu vide letter No.534/GL/103/01 T2 dated 15.12.2001 intimated the respondents that the petitioner had returned to his Unit in September, 2001, however, the petitioner did not report in the Unit. Therefore, a Court of Inquiry was ordered and a show cause notice bearing No. Estt/Disc/JVG/172/2001/9412 dated 30.10.2001 was sent to the petitioner through registered letter directing him to report back by 30.11.2001. The aforesaid notice was also received back in the office of the respondents undelivered with the remarks of the postal authorities that the individual had left the station. It is further contended in the objections that another communication dated 10.12.2001 was sent to the petitioner with copy to his wife, namely Smt. Achamma Johnson, that too received back undelivered and petitioner did not resume his duties. Accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. Estt/Dismiss-JVG/172/2002/16-199 dated 16.01.2002 and the order of dismissal was sent to Superintendent of Police, District Pathanamathitte, Kerala, Station House Officer, Police Station Pulikeezhu with a request to hand over the copy of aforesaid dismissal order to the petitioner but the dismissal order was also remained undelivered with the postal authorities? report that the addressee has left the station and present address not known. It is also averred in the objections that dismissal order was again forwarded to petitioner?s father namely, Shri V. C George vide communication No.Estt/Dismiss/JVG/172Bn/2002/2083 dated 18.02.2002 by registered post, which too returned back un-served. It is further averred that as per the certificate of Dr. K.T George, MD (Ay) dated 30.09.2003, petitioner remained under treatment for 24 months and 11 days from 20.09.2001 but no prescription slip and continuation of treatment was sent by the petitioner to the respondents-department. 7. Ms. It is further averred that as per the certificate of Dr. K.T George, MD (Ay) dated 30.09.2003, petitioner remained under treatment for 24 months and 11 days from 20.09.2001 but no prescription slip and continuation of treatment was sent by the petitioner to the respondents-department. 7. Ms. Surinder Kour, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the reason behind petitioner?s non-joining the duties in the Unit was that while boarding on train from his home onward, he fell unconscious in the train itself and when regained conscious found him admitted in the Government Ayurveda College and Hospital, Trivandrum, wherein he remained under treatment of Dr. K.T George, MD (Ay) for a period of 24 months and 11 days, upto 30.10.2003. She further submits that as per the medical certificate dated 30.09.2003 issued by the said doctor, the petitioner was declared fit for normal duties and advised to take medicines for further period of 06 months. 8. It is also argued by the learned senior counsel that the moment petitioner was declared fit by the doctor to resume duties, he immediately approached respondent No.5 i.e., Commandant, 172 Battalion, B.S.F for resumption of duties, who instead of allowing him to join, shown the order of dismissal. Learned senior counsel has also strenuously argued that the respondents have violated the provisions of Sections 60 and 62 of the BSF Act, 1968 and Rules 22(2), 170 and 173 of BSF Rules, 1969. 9. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as during short span of service of 10 years, 09 months and 06 days, he was awarded with punishment of 21 days RI in force custody on 19.05.1995 for commission of offence under Section 19(a), 19(b) and 21(2) of the BSF Act, 1968. He further submits that petitioner was also awarded 28 days RI in force custody on 10.08.1999 for commission of offence under Section 19(a) of BSF Act, 1968. 10. Petitioner at no point of time intimated the respondent regarding change of his residential address, which he otherwise was bound to do so as per Civil Services Conduct Rules. Even otherwise also, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has changed his residential address, meaning thereby, the petitioner and his family members were very much residing at the address on which the notices were sent by the respondents. Even otherwise also, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has changed his residential address, meaning thereby, the petitioner and his family members were very much residing at the address on which the notices were sent by the respondents. Relying on the postal authorities? third remark in the report that the individual?s present address not known, in that event too, the petitioner is duty bound to provide alternative address at the time when he proceeded on leave, if he has changed his residence to some other place. This fact also amounts to misconduct on his part. The report of the police concerned furnished in the office of the respondents vide communication bearing No.534/GL/103/01 T2 dated 15.12.2001, Annexure R-3 with the objections, is indicative of the fact that the petitioner is very much residing at the address which he had recorded in the service records. Original record also suggests that the official respondents have made their best endeavour by issuing show cause notice not only a single time but at number of times on different dates and even sent the notices through the Police authorities as well but all such notices were received back undelivered. All the show cause notices have been sent to the petitioner on the address which he himself recorded in his service records, thus, no question arises at all for breach of Section 62 read with Rule 22(2) and the procedure prescribed under Section 173(8) of the BSF Act. 11. The show cause notices are generally served by post when an employee is unauthorizedly absenting himself or absconding or otherwise evading service of show cause notice. The absenting employee many a times are not available at their last known address, therefore, naturally the show cause notices or other communications are required to be sent at the address provided by the employee. Requirement of actual service make it too difficult for the disciplinary authority to proceed further against the employee who may himself be evading service of notices. If an employee is not attending the office, the show cause notices including other communications has to be communicated to him at his last known address. My view is fortified by the judgment passed by this Court in case titled as “Mohd. Hussain Wani Vs. If an employee is not attending the office, the show cause notices including other communications has to be communicated to him at his last known address. My view is fortified by the judgment passed by this Court in case titled as “Mohd. Hussain Wani Vs. State of J&K and Others”, reported as 1997 KLJ 76, wherein it is held that “it is not expected from the employer to search for the absconding employee throughout the world in order to serve him the show cause notice. The department has to serve the show cause notice at the address which was available with the employer.” 12. Admittedly, the petitioner had to rejoin his duty on 29.07.2001 after availing duly sanctioned 15 days? casual leave and even if it is presumed that the overstay of the petitioner was bonafide on the ground that he is under treatment in the hospital, however, the fact still remains that as per the doctor certificate dated 30.09.2003, the petitioner remained under treatment w.e.f 20.09.2001, but the petitioner failed to explain 54 days over stayed period w.e.f 29.07.2001 to 20.09.2001. Thus, it transpires that the petitioner deliberately remained on unauthorized absence on frivolous plea. Such a conduct on his part is itself a serious lapse/misconduct which cannot be believed from a member of the disciplined force, who is always expected to observe and maintain highest discipline. 13. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad (2005) 13 SCC 709 has observed that members of the uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined upon them. Such discipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. It would be advantageous to reproduce appropriate portion of judgment hereunder:- “Members of the uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined upon them. Such discipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such forces desertion is a serious matter. Cases of this nature, in whatever manner described, are cases of desertion particularly when there is apprehension of the member of the force being called upon to perform onerous duties in difficult terrains or an order of deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed. We cannot take such matters lightly, particularly when it relates to uniformed forces of this country. Cases of this nature, in whatever manner described, are cases of desertion particularly when there is apprehension of the member of the force being called upon to perform onerous duties in difficult terrains or an order of deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed. We cannot take such matters lightly, particularly when it relates to uniformed forces of this country. A member of a uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation. However, a member of the force who goes on leave and never reports for duties thereafter, cannot be said to be one merely overstaying his leave. He must be treated as a deserter.” 14. The judicial pronouncements of Hon?ble the Division Bench as well as coordinate Bench of this Court in cases “Union of India and Others Vs. Babu Singh”, 2013 (2) JKJ 493 [HC], “V. Nageswar Rao Vs. Union of India and Others” SWP No.1242/2004 and “Balraj Singh Vs. Union of India and Others” SWP No.1208/2006, referred to and cited by Ms. Surinder Kour, learned senior counsel, are distinguishable and not identical to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, so the same are not applicable to the case in hand. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated hereinabove and on having thorough scrutiny of the original record produced by Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, it is crystal clear that there is no violation of provisions of BSF Act and Rules. The order of dismissal bearing No. Estt/Dismiss-JVG/172/2002/16-199 dated 16.01.2002 has been passed strictly by following all the provisions applicable under the BSF Act and Rules. Thus, this Court deem it proper and appropriate not to interfere with the aforesaid dismissal order. Accordingly, this petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is, dismissed along with connected application, if any. 16. Registry to return the record to Mr.Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI against proper receipt.