S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) APPELLANT is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23. 5. 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ petition filed by him questioning an order of the Summary Security Force Court dated 8. 9. 2002 whereby and whereunder a sentence of dismissal from service was imposed.

( 3 ) APPELLANT, at all material times, was working as a constable in the border Security Force. At the relevant time, he was posted at 24 Bn. BSF at jodhpur. His duty, inter alia, was collection of official dak from Central diary, FHQ BSF, New Delhi through SHQ BSF Amritsar. He was sent to shq BSF Amritsar along with one `kalipada Mandal'. He had been given an authority letter with an electricity bill. He was directed to collect bank draft prepared in respect of the said bill by PAD well in advance, otherwise to report to the Unit immediately. The Dak was collected from the Central diary. They reached at their destination on 31. 7. 2000; collected the Dak from Central Diary, FHQ BSF New Delhi on 3. 8. 2000. Appellant informed the Second-in-Command on phone on 3. 8. 2000 that some unit drafts were to be collected from PAD. As 5th and 6th August, 2000 were holidays, appellant was directed to report back forthwith by boarding the evening train from Amritsar on 3. 8. 2000 as he had official Dak in his possession. He did not do so although he had already collected the official Dak. He reported for duty on 7. 8. 2000. An enquiry was initiated. He could not give a satisfactory reply before the Commandant. He was awarded 7 days' Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) in the custody of the force for absence without leave. The said punishment was imposed as the offence was committed by him for the second time during service. According to respondents, earlier he had committed the following offences.

"1. Disobeyed the lawful command of then 21c of his Unit. 2. Kept official Dak with him for 4 days. 3. Absented himself from duty for 4 days. "

While in the custody of the force, he is said to have committed the following offences:"a. Refused to take meals w. e. f. 10/08/2000 to 11/08/2000 in protest of punishment. b. Refused to do the pack drill on all seven days while undergoing RI, which is total defiance of authority. "

He was put to trial before a Summary Security Force Court on the aforementioned two charges in terms of the provisions of the Border security Force Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") and the rules framed thereunder.

( 4 ) HE pleaded guilty to both the charges. He was dismissed from service. A statutory petition filed by him under Section 117 of the Act was rejected by the Director General of Border Security Force by an order dated 28. 6. 2001. Legality and/ or validity of the said order came to be questioned by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh which was marked as Criminal Writ Petition No. 872 of 2003.

( 5 ) BEFORE the High Court, principally two contentions were raised, (1) he had not been given an opportunity to engage the services of a counsel, and (2) the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence charged against.

( 6 ) BOTH the said contentions were rejected by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

( 7 ) MR. Shiv Prakash Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant apart from the contentions raised before the High Court, urged:

i. As `kalipada Mandal', another constable of the Border security Force having also absented from the duties and no action having been taken against him, the entire proceeding against appellant is vitiated in law. ii. The purported misconduct having been committed by appellant while he was in prison, it does not come within the purview of `misconduct' within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act.

( 8 ) MR. A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, submitted:

i. Appellant being in uniform