JUDGMENT Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner had been working as Constable in the Border Security Force since 1990. On 10th February, 2002 a note of caution was issued against the petitioner under the caption "advice" mentioned that the petitioner under the false pretext of shortage of money has not proceeded to Takanpura and continued in Command Head Quarter. It has also been mentioned that upon falsely pretending of problems at his house the petitioner got sanctioned 10 days casual leave and it was treated as breaking the chain of command. This advice was ordered to be kept in the company's record. On 18th November, 2002 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet for a trial on 20th November, 2002.
3. The petitioner was charged with the following offence:-
ABSENTING HIMSELF WITHOUT LEAVE In that he, at 0800 Hrs. on 07-09-2002(FN) having been issued movement order from THQ with direction to report C-Coy for duties, absented himself en route without leave voluntarily reported BSF T/Camp Jammu on 13-11-2002 after 68 days AWL.
The petitioner was thus absent without leave for a period of 68 days. The petitioner pleaded guilty.
4. The Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) appointed Shri R.S.K. Chaudhary, Asst. Commandant to act as "Friend" of the accused/petitioner herein in the proceedings of SSFC held on 20th November, 2002. The petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service on 20th November, 2002. The petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short the `BSF Act') which was disposed of by the order dated 9th April, 2003 leading to the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6318 of 2004 entitled Ex. Const. Sanjay Kumar v. UOI. On 6th September, 2005 this Court passed an order in the said WP(C) No. 6318 of 2004 directing the setting aside of the unreasoned order dated 9th April, 2003 and further directed the BSF to dispose of the petitioner's statutory petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act by a fresh reasoned order, not later than 4th November, 2005.
5. We have seen the reasoned order dated 28th October, 2005 passed by the Director General, BSF and commend the said officer for passing a well considered, balanced and a reasoned order. We are of the view that if such orders are passed in statutory appeal(s) to be preferred under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act the pendency of litigation(s) and unnecessary petitions in this Court would stand reduced drastically and in certain instances even the petitioner may be satisfied with the reasons given and in any case the Court sitting under Article 226 is then enabled to process the reasons without going to the cumbersome procedure of going through the records.
6. The following findings were recorded by the impugned order dated 28th October, 2005 in the present writ petition:-
(a) Even at his trial instead of showing some proof of compelling circumstances for his absence the petitioner pleaded `guilty' and stated as follows:-
...I left for my home without leave due to compelling circumstances of sickness of my wife and children. I will not repeat such mistakes in future. I may be pardoned for this offence.
(b) The petitioner had been punished earlier on four occasions in September, 1992; in January, 1993; in December, 2001 and in March, 2002.
(c) This apart the petitioner had overstayed leave on four occasions during 1992, 1997, 1999 and 2000 which were regularized by granting leave of kind due to him.
(d) The petitioner was also given a last chance by his Commandant to improve.
(e) The above adverse records of the petitioner established beyond doubt that he was unfit to be retained in a disciplined Force such as BSF.
7. The appellate order dated 28th October, 2005 also noted the following:-
(a) that the petitioner's leave record shows that from the year 1991 to 2002 he had availed required number of casual leave as well as earned leave.
(b) On almost every occasion the petitioner mentioned about sickness of his mother, father and most of times about serious sickness of his wife. On two occasions he availed leave for his sister's marriage whereas he has only one sister.
(c) He also availed leave on two occasions due to the death of his grand father. He was even granted leave due to the accident of his mother even though no leave of any kind was due to him.
(d) Even on the last occasion he was sanctioned 10 days casual leave by his Commander whereas his Coy Commander had recommended for 15 days casual leave to him.
(e) These facts disproves the allegation of bias.
(f) The petitioner absented himself without leave to avoid impending disciplinary action against him for offence of molesting a civilian girl under Section 354 IPC.
8. In this view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Neeraj Shekhar has contended that there was gross violation of Rule 49 of the BSF Rules as the petitioner was not provided with the abstract of evidence within time. This plea has lost meaning in the light of the fact that the petitioner had pleaded guilty. Once the petitioner pleaded guilty the delay, if any, in giving him the evidence causes no prejudice to him. Even if this plea of the petitioner's counsel is accepted as correct, the alleged violation of Rule 49 is not of such magnitude so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, taking into account the petitioner's past record which disclosed that the petitioner is not very serious about his service in the BSF.
9. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed and stand disposed of with no order as to costs.