Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a BSF Constable who was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence, specifically for a period of 39 days, after attending to urgent family matters following his brother's death (!) [19000114980001].

2. The petitioner argued that he was permitted orally to leave for his family emergency and returned after the stipulated period, claiming procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice in his dismissal (!) [19000114980002].

3. The respondents contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to explain his absence, and the proceedings before the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) were conducted properly in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures (!) [19000114980006].

4. It was established that the petitioner was attached to a different battalion after his absence, and the trial was conducted at that location, which was within the jurisdiction of the commanding officer authorized to convene the SSFC (!) [19000114980008].

5. The court found that the proceedings were carried out in accordance with the law, that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself, and that the SSFC had proper jurisdiction to try the case (!) [19000114980006][19000114980008].

6. The argument that a Court of Inquiry was mandatory before trial was rejected, as the proceedings commenced after the petitioner reported back and was available for disciplinary action (!) [19000114980009].

7. The court emphasized that the punishment of dismissal was within the powers granted under the BSF Act and Rules, and that the procedure followed was appropriate for a trial by SSFC, which does not require prior notice or show cause against the punishment (!) [19000114980010][19000114980011].

8. The petitioner did not avail of the statutory remedy provided under Section 117 of the BSF Act, which allows for a petition to be made to higher authorities for confirmation of the findings or sentence, and therefore the writ petition was dismissed on this ground (!) [19000114980003].

9. Overall, the court upheld the jurisdiction of the SSFC, confirmed that the disciplinary process was properly conducted, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirming that the punishment was within the legal authority of the SSFC (!) [19000114980012].

These points summarize the legal reasoning and findings related to the disciplinary proceedings, procedural compliance, and the jurisdictional aspects involved in the case.