JUDGMENT 1. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner who was working as a Rifleman(GD) in Assam Rifles had taken leave for the period 12.03.2016 to 08.04.2016, but however, failed to rejoin his duties after his leave expired, and in fact only reported back on 24.02.2017. After the petitioner rejoined his unit voluntarily, he was tried by the Summary Assam Rifles Court under Section 26(b) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and after the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 10.06.2017, was awarded the sentence of 'Dismissal from Service' w.e.f. from 10.06.2017. An Appeal against the dismissal order was also preferred before the Appellate Authority, but the same was dismissed by order dated 23.10.2018. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby has filed the instant writ petition. 2. The grounds of challenge of the impugned order of dismissal are that the statement made by the petitioner regarding explanation of his overstay of period of leave, was not considered, that his signatures in the records of inquiry were obtained under duress, and that the entire proceedings were bad in law, as the Commandant who had ordered for the trial of the petitioner had conducted the trial himself. It has also been contended that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the offence charged, as the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from joining his duties in time. Reference has also been made to Section 26(b) of the Assam Rifles Act, which the learned counsel submits, that before coming to any findings, the Authority must come to a conclusion that the petitioner overstayed his leave without sufficient cause. In the instant case, he contends, despite there being evidence regarding his cause of absence, the same was disregarded. 3. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted by the learned DSGI, that the petitioner had been accorded ample opportunity to defend himself during the entire disciplinary proceedings. It has been submitted that, a tentative charge sheet had been handed over to the petitioner on 29.05.2017, and hearing of charge took place on 30.05.2017, and that during the Summary of Evidence, the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce valid reasons to substantiate his unauthorized absence of 322 days from duty, which he failed to do. It has been submitted that, a tentative charge sheet had been handed over to the petitioner on 29.05.2017, and hearing of charge took place on 30.05.2017, and that during the Summary of Evidence, the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce valid reasons to substantiate his unauthorized absence of 322 days from duty, which he failed to do. It is further submitted that, the entire proceedings as prescribed by law, and the Assam Rifles Act and Rules have been followed, and adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself and that proper procedure, which involved Hearing of Charge and recording of Summary of Evidence was followed. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that, the petitioner has been a perpetual offender for not rejoining his duties on time and absenting himself for long periods, without any information to his superiors, and that he had been absent on three occasions for elongated periods. It is lastly submitted that, though leniency was shown to the petitioner on earlier two occasions, his conduct has been detrimental to the discipline of the Force. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709 in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, in support of the submissions advanced. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, and carefully examined the materials on record. A perusal of the records as placed in the writ petition itself reveals that, the writ petitioner had been served a tentative charge sheet on 29.05.2017, and thereafter in the Summary of Evidence that was recorded in his presence and in the presence of independent witnesses, was also given adequate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses which he declined. The signatures of the writ petitioner are also duly appended which confirms his participation. In his statement, after the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses had been recorded, the writ petitioner has categorically admitted that he had overstayed his leave and that he rejoined his duty after a lapse of 322 days on 24.02.2017. It has been further admitted in the recorded statement by the writ petitioner that he did not inform anyone or tried to contact anybody. It is seen that the signature of the petitioner is also appended to the said statement. 5. It has been further admitted in the recorded statement by the writ petitioner that he did not inform anyone or tried to contact anybody. It is seen that the signature of the petitioner is also appended to the said statement. 5. After the Summary of Evidence, it is noted that, a communication was then made that the writ petitioner be tried by Summary Assam Rifles Court under the Assam Rifles Act, as per Section 26(b) for overstaying leave without sufficient cause. It is also reflected from the materials on record that, the writ petitioner was duly intimated on 03.06.2017 and was allowed to depute a person to assist him for his defence. In the preparation of defence, the writ petitioner did not wish to call any witness on his behalf, and accordingly, after conclusion of the proceedings on 10.06.2017, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of 'Dismissal from Service'. An appeal was also preferred, which however, was rejected by order dated 23.10.2018. 6. From the discussions above, it is clearly seen that, due process in accordance with law, had been followed and in the considered opinion of this Court, the said disciplinary proceedings, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity or are vitiated by any irregularity or that there was no adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. The scope of judicial review, in such matters, is very limited as the High Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal over the orders of the disciplinary authorities, nor can it reappreciate or reassess the findings of the inquiry. Furthermore, a fact that cannot be ignored is that the petitioner is a member of the Armed Forces which demands a higher standard of discipline. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision placed by the counsel for the respondents namely Union of India & Ors. v. Datta Linga Toshatwad (supra), wherein at Para - 6 it has been held as follows: '6. One cannot ignore the large number of cases which come to this Court of members of uniformed forces remaining absent from duty without any reasonable explanation. Whenever action is taken, the usual plea taken is of having been ill or some such false pretext, and even fake or false medical certificates are produced in support of such a plea. One cannot ignore the large number of cases which come to this Court of members of uniformed forces remaining absent from duty without any reasonable explanation. Whenever action is taken, the usual plea taken is of having been ill or some such false pretext, and even fake or false medical certificates are produced in support of such a plea. We would not have taken a serious view of the matter had it not been a case of a constable belonging to CRPF remaining absent for an indefinite period. Even if we assume that the respondent was suffering from depression and was being treated as an outdoor patient, the medical certificates produced by him show that he was restored to normalcy on 4-4-1998 yet the respondent did not choose to report for duty. The order of dismissal was passed seven months later i.e. on 2-11-1998. This itself discloses the hollowness of the claim of the respondent regarding mental depression and imbalance which he claims to have suffered.' 7. In the result therefore, there being no palpable error in the conduct of proceedings, and the punishment awarded, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, and is accordingly dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.