1. Vide judgment impugned dated 15.05.2009, writ petition of the respondent has been allowed. The order of dismissal dated 18.10.1999 as was against the respondent has been set aside. The appellants have been directed to re-instate the writ petitioner (respondent herein) with all consequential benefits. However, have been left free to hold fresh enquiry. Aggrieved thereof, the Instant Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would project that the order of dismissal dated 18.10.1999, was passed by the appellant No. 5, after observing the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the Rules (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act" and "the Rules"). The respondent belonged to a disciplined Force. He was undesirable to be retained in the service, in view of his negligent attitude of remaining absent with impunity, that too without any authorization. Learned counsel has also produced the records so as to support his contention that all procedural safeguards have been observed in letter and spirit.

3. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that absence of the respondent was circumstant