ORDER : (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective sides, the Court made the following order : 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.10.2022, passed in W.P.(S) No. 149 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for quashing of the order no. Adm/2051/dismiss/2007/1967-1716 dated 7.4.2007 issued under the signature of the Officer Commandant TC and BSF Hazaribagh dismissing the appellant from service on the ground of being absent from duty has been rejected. 3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the appellant was appointed in the service of Border Security Force on 5.8.2000 and was posted as a constable in 31 BH BSF attached with Jazz Band of TC & 5 BSF Meru Camp Hazaribagh. 4. The appellant was granted leave for ten days for the period 29.08.2006 to 09.09.2006. Since the appellant did not join, vide letter dated 25.09.2006, the Staff Officer (Adm) TC & S BSF Hazaribagh had directed the appellant to join, failing which disciplinary action was sought to be initiated under the BSF Act & Rules. Several letters followed directing the appellant to join his duty. Since the appellant continued to remain absent, a one Man Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire the circumstances, under which the appellant was absent from duty without leave with effect from 16.09.2006 (AN). The One Man Enquiry Committee had submitted a report pursuant to which a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 5.2.2007 for his proposed dismissal from service. Vide letter no. ADM/205/dismiss/2007/1997-1716 dated 7.4.2007, the Officer Commanding had struck off the appellant’s name from the strength of 31 BN BSF & TC & S BSF, Hazaribagh with effect from 7.4.2007. 5. It is the case of the appellant that being unaware about the order of dismissal passed against him he came to resume duty and on coming to know about the letter dated 7.4.2007, he had filed an application stating the entire facts before the Commandant BSF Maupat East Khashi Hills Meghalaya as also before the Director General Border Security Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi but such application of the appellant was rejected by the Inspector General, BSF, Meghalaya vide letter no. F/No.26/5/08 ESTT/SHG/B 763. F/No.26/5/08 ESTT/SHG/B 763. The act of the respondents in dismissing the appellant from service and rejection of his representation by way appeal prompted the petitioner to move this Court in W.P.S. No.149 of 2009, which, however, was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2022. 6. Assailing the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, passed in W.P.S. No. 149 of 2009, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant had completed more than 6 years in service without any complaint whatsoever and since during the period the appellant was granted leave, he had lost his mental balance and also had become traceless, for which the father of the appellant had intimated the police. The delay on the part of the appellant in resuming duty was neither deliberate nor intentional. It has further been submitted that considering the past record of the appellant even if the concerned respondents were of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been given by the appellant in absenting from duty without intimation, the same also would not have attracted a punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances in the case of Yasodhar Kamat Vs. Director General, Border Security Force and Others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 134, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the factual aspects of the said case had substituted the order of dismissal from service by replacing it with discharge from service with effect from the date on which the said applicant completes pensionable service of 20 years. 7. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel, has submitted that the impugned orders clearly reveal that the appellant had absented from duty without leave and without intimating the concerned officers and such act of the appellant being a member of a disciplined force has to be dealt with strong hands and accordingly the order of dismissal passed against him and his subsequent rejection of representation does not necessitate any interference. 8. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Central Government Counsel, it is apparent that the appellant had joined in the service of Border Security Force on 5.8.2000 and during his service period, he was granted leave of ten days from 29.8.2006 to 9.9.2006. 8. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Central Government Counsel, it is apparent that the appellant had joined in the service of Border Security Force on 5.8.2000 and during his service period, he was granted leave of ten days from 29.8.2006 to 9.9.2006. However, the appellant overstayed his leave and no intimation was given by the appellant to his department, which constrained the initiation of a proceeding against the appellant and which ultimately culminated in his dismissal from service. 9. It appears from the impugned order as well as from the other documents that it has nowhere been concluded by the department that the appellant had deliberately avoided to appear before the committee or to file a show cause reply. Infact the claim of the appellant that he was suffering from mental illness is fortified by the fact that an information was also given by the father of the appellant to the police on 28.11.2006 stating therein that the appellant who was under depression had left home and has become traceless. It is also manifest that nowhere in the impugned orders, it has surfaced that the appellant was a habitual absentee or for that matter there were complaints against the appellant with respect to the duty performed by him. The appellant has served the BSF for six years prior to his dismissal and there being no adverse orders against him during the period, in which he was in service, the order of dismissal passed against the appellant seems to be harsh. This Court is aware of the fact that the appellant was a member of the disciplined force but the surrounding circumstance as has been noted above does not entail the punishment as has been imposed upon him by the impugned order. 10. In the case of Yasodhar Kamat Vs. Director General, Border Security Force and Others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 134, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of dismissal of the said appellant from service on the ground of absenteeism from duty. In the said case, the appellant had served for 17 years and he was also penalized earlier for being unauthorizedly absent from duty without leave. In the said case, the appellant had served for 17 years and he was also penalized earlier for being unauthorizedly absent from duty without leave. However taking into consideration the entire facets of the said case, it was held as follows:- “7……….However having regard to the fact that the appellant had nearly seventeen years of service, we are of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, an appropriate view needs to be taken so as to facilitate the appellant being granted pension after completion of twenty years of pensionable service. This is in view of the fact that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal would be disproportionate having regard to the material which has emerged from the record. We order and direct that instead of and in substitution of an order of dismissal from service, the appellant shall be treated as having been discharged from service with effect from the date on which he completes pensionable service of twenty years. However, the appellant will not be entitled to any back wages between the date on which he was originally dismissed and the date on which he completes the requirement of pensionable service. The arrears of pension to which the appellant is entitled shall be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order”. 11. In the present case though the appellant has served for six years but it appears that he had an unblemished career and the factual aspects as considered above would reveal a plausible explanation having been submitted by the appellant though belatedly and in such circumstances therefore the imposition of penalty of dismissal would be disproportionate. 12. In such view of the matter, therefore, we hereby set aside the order dated 19.10.2022, passed in W.P.(S) No. 149 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge and modify the imposition of penalty of dismissal by substituting the same with the order that the appellant shall be treated as having been discharged from service with effect from the date on which he completes pensionable service of 20 years. 13. It is made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages during the entire period. 14. This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.