JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991 dismissing him from service and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back- wages and all consequential benefits. The orders Annexure-12 dated 31st December, 1998 and Annexure-1 dated 3rd July, 2001 have also been challenged. 2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are necessary and relevant for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner while serving with the respondent on the post of Constable posted at Barmer Remained absent without leave. The reason for petitioner's suddenly absconding from the duty voluntarily without applying and getting the leave sanctioned was that on 21st February, 1989 the Custom Officials of Jodhpur recovered 5-6 kg. heroin form one Khema Ram Jat and during the course of Investigation, accused Khema Ram and one co-accused Nathu Ram informed the Investigating Agency that they received the said contraband heroin from the present petitioner Narendra Singh while he was posted at Barmer. The petitioner was alloted a service residential quarter within the premises of Barmer police line. However, despite extensive search, he could not be traced out. Since the moment the co-accused khema Ram from whose possession very 5-6 kg. contraband was recovered; was arrested by the police, the petitioner absconded from service duty without any information to Barmer police Authorities. The fact of petitioner's having absconded has been recorded in the Roznamcha report no. 1249 dated 23rd February, 1989, Though an extensive search was carried out by the respondents as also by the Investigating Agency investigating crime report involving seizure of herein but the petitioner could not be traced out. The respondents even deployed a police official of the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector, namely, Faras Ram, ASI appointing him as Special Officer for search of the petitioner, who though came to search him even at jodhpur but could not find him. The petitioner sent certain medical certificates alleged to have been showing himself to be sick from a fake address. The petitioner sent certain medical certificates alleged to have been showing himself to be sick from a fake address. even investigation was carried out to find out the petitioner from the address mentioned on the envelop by which the medical certificates on enquiry were found to be not genuine and therefore, the respondents initiated an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the CCA Rules, 1958" hereinafter) against the petitioner. The enquiry was held in accordance with law by following the due procedure prescribed and by impugned order Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991 while holding charges as mentioned in memorandum of allegations proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The period of absence of the petitioner from the duty was sanctioned as leave without pay and the subsistence allowance payable for the period of suspension was forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991 before the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range-jodhpur which came to be dismissed by order Annexure- 12 dated 31st December, 1998, Against which the petitioner preferred a review petition before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan which also came to be dismissed by order vide Annexure-14 dated 3rd July, 2001, Hence, this writ petition, 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents raising preliminary objection that the order dismissing the petitioner from service Annexure-4 is of dated 20th December, 1991 and the writ petition has been filed almost after 11 years from passing of the order of dismissal and therefore, the writ petition suffers from delay and latches. Apart from the fact that writ petition suffers from delay and latches, the respondent state came with a case that the petitioner absconded from duty without leave and remained absent for the reason which even according to the petitioner was that he was involved in a criminal case punishable under the provision of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and apprehending his arrest in the criminal case, he absconded soon after the co-accused Khema Ram Jat was arrested by the authorities of the Custom Department having found him in possession of 5-6 kg. heroin without there being any license to possess such heroin and said heroin was delivered to him by the petitioner. heroin without there being any license to possess such heroin and said heroin was delivered to him by the petitioner. There being no material explaining his absence without leave before the Enquiry officer as well as Disciplinary Authority the Disciplinary Authority rightly concluded the enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service. The Appellate Authority as well as reviewing Authority have considered the matter in the light of the evidence available on record and did not find any good ground to interfere with the order of dismissal. It has also been averred in the reply that the medical certificates sent by the petitioner from a fake address ultimately were found to be not genuine. Even a Medical Officer of a cadre by which certificate alleged to have been issued, there is no competency to grant such a long medical leave at one stretch Even the respondent made serious efforts to trace out the petitioner and extensive search was carried out by appointing a special officer Faras Ram, ASI for this purpose but could not find him. According to the respondents, the petitioner himself admitted in Annexure-15 that in the service quarter allotted to him at Barmer police Line, his wife and children were staying from 22nd February, 1989 to January 1994. It is not the case of the petitioner that for the said period, the petitioner continued to stay at Barmer in the service quarter, according to the respondent this clearly goes to show that it is admitted case of petitioner that petitioner remained absent without leave w.e.f. 23rd February, 1989 till the completion of enquiry and even thereafter. Lastly, it is submitted that acquittal in criminal case punishable for the offence under NDPS Act by giving benefit of doubt cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. That the co-accused Khema Ram and Nathu Ram came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. These two accused made a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in which though it was stated that the contraband heroin, which was recovered from accused Khema Ram, was given to him by the present petitioner. That the co-accused Khema Ram and Nathu Ram came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. These two accused made a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in which though it was stated that the contraband heroin, which was recovered from accused Khema Ram, was given to him by the present petitioner. Since the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was not relied upon by the court trying case under the provisions of NDPS Act, therefore, the statement made by co-accused is of no help to the respondents. Learned counsel also states that petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order of dismissal Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner sent a communication to the respondent-supplying a copy of the order of dismissal and thereafter, filed an appeal before the respondent Deputy Inspector General of police, Range-Jodhpur. On dismissal of the appeal, a review petition was filed before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan. The review petition came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the review petition has not been decided on merit. Lastly, it was contended that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to that of delinquency Learned counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in (i) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopal Singh & Anr., 1998(2) SCT 277 : 1998(1) WLC 1 (Raj.), (ii) Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan, DNJ 2003(2) 611 (Raj.) , (iii) Sualal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006(2) RDD 1156 (Raj.) 1156 , (iv) Anand Bharti & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2002(1) WLC (Raj.) 203. 6. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that first of all the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The order impugned Annexure-4 is of dated 20th December, 1991 dismissing the petitioner from service and the writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 11 years. Learned Additional Government Counsel has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh & Ors., 2007(2) SCT 601 : AIR 2007 SC 1365 and in Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr., 2007(1) SCT 224 : AIR 2007 SC 924. 7. Learned Additional Government Counsel has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh & Ors., 2007(2) SCT 601 : AIR 2007 SC 1365 and in Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr., 2007(1) SCT 224 : AIR 2007 SC 924. 7. Learned Additional Government Counsel further contends that the respondent Disciplinary Authority has taken note of each and every piece of material placed before it during the enquiry and after sound appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner absconded and remained absent without leave voluntarily from 23rd February, 1989 till the completion of the enquiry and even thereafter, obviously, finding himself to be having involved in commission of offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. The respondents have rightly dismissed the petitioner from service. It appears from the record that co-accused Khema Ram Jat was found to be in possession of 5-6 kg heroin and on his disclosure by making a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. it reveals that it was the petitioner who gave the said heroin to the accused-Khema Ram and Nathu Ram and therefore, now if the petitioner comes and say that be lost his mental balance and as such, remained absent for a long period cannot be ground to mitigate the deliquency. He further contends that for such a long absence from service in a Department of Police where the discipline of highest degree expected from the employee police personnel and while in uniform, the petitioner police constable exhibited total disrespect to the orders of the superior officers of the police for not attending the duty and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh to that of the delinquency. Lastly, it was contended that there is no procedural error or irregularity in holding departmental enquiry and the finding thereof. The Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as also the reviewing Authority concurrently found that the petitioner remained absent from service voluntarily and willfully without leave from 23rd February, 1989 till the completion of enquiry and even thereafter, Therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent Authorities do not call any interference. He has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. He has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Mohammed Ayub Naz, 2006(1) SCT 445 : (2006)1 SCC 589 and in General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India & Anr. v. Mohd. Nizamuddin, 2006(4) SCT 335 : AIR 2006 SC 3290 . 8. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Counsel further submits that while holding enquiry, the respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the law. The notice of the enquiry was sent to the petitioner and when he did not turn up notice was sent to him including affixing the copy of the notice at the conspicuous place of his residence and also notice was published in the newspaper but the petitioner did not appear and participate in the enquiry and in these circumstances, if cannot be said that principles of natural justice not been observed. He has relied on two decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 136 and in Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan, 2000(4) SCT 313 : AIR 2000 SC 2783 . 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopal Singh & Anr. (Supra) this court held that even if misconduct is proved, there can be interference by the Court for good and sufficient reasons, with the order of discharge or dismissal. However, the power has to be exercisers judicially and interference in only when the punishment found to be shockingly disproportionate to degree of guilt of workman. 11. In Ram Chandra v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), this Court held that the punishment/penalty imposed commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, a disproportionate penalty would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of INdia. 12. In Anand Bharti & Ors. v. State Of Raj. & Anr. (supra), this court held that incumbent has failed to give satisfactory while he was alive before his authorities to whom he applied for leave which was refused during his lifetime, if resulted in interruption in services and forfeiture of past service. Hence, the services prior to date of joining afresh cannot be counted as qualifying services under the Rules. (supra), this court held that incumbent has failed to give satisfactory while he was alive before his authorities to whom he applied for leave which was refused during his lifetime, if resulted in interruption in services and forfeiture of past service. Hence, the services prior to date of joining afresh cannot be counted as qualifying services under the Rules. The petitioners therein on principles of no work wages cannot ask for emoluments for the period during which the deceased incumbent remained unauthorizedly absent from duty and had not discharged any duties. As a result of break in service as per Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, past services are not to be counted for computing qualifying service, hence, no right to get pension can be claimed on that basis. 13. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. (supra), while considering the principles of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "The principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced." The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under:- "Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. Therefore, merely because facts are admitted or are indisputable it does not follow that natural justice need not be observed. 14. In Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed in violation of natural justice need not be interfered except to the principle that breach of natural is itself prejudice. 15. 14. In Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed in violation of natural justice need not be interfered except to the principle that breach of natural is itself prejudice. 15. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1999(1) SCT 561 : (1999) 6 SCC 237 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. 16. In Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from class of cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate of the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta, ( AIR 1999 SC 2583 ), referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilbeforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Singham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. Etc. In various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs, Garner, Craig, De Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark Etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said, that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via-media rules. We do not think it necessary, in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, It may depend on the facts of a particular case." 17. In General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India v. Mohd. Nizamuddin (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The gravity of misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of the misconduct. In the ultimate analysis, It may depend on the facts of a particular case." 17. In General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India v. Mohd. Nizamuddin (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The gravity of misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of the misconduct. AS Bank Officer holding the post of Middle Management Officer Grade II which is a responsible post absented himself unauthorisedly for about three years which is undoubtedly detrimental to the public interest cannot be said to be not grave misconduct which would warrant dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal from service on the proved misconduct would not be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. There can never a more grave misconduct than a Bank Officer holding a responsible post absenting himself unauthorisedly to the public interest. That apart, despite the receipt of several notices issued to him he remained adamant and shy away from participating in the inquiry proceedings. THis conduct is also unbecoming of a responsible officer holding the position as Middle Management Officer Grade II." 18. In State of Rajasthan & Anr v. Mohammed Ayub Naz (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Government servant who has willfully been absent for a period of about 3 years and which fact is not disputed, has no right to receive the monetary/retiral benefits during the period in question and considering totality of the circumstances and the admitted fact that the respondent tehrein was willfully absent for 3 years, held that the punishment of removal imposed om hi, is absolutely correct and not disproportionate.In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1986 SC 484 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Disciplinary Authority and on appeals, appellate authority are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while exsercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal; it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.In Om Kumar & Ors. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal; it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.In Om Kumar & Ors. v. Union Of India, 2001(1) SCT 214 : 2001(2) SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment/proportionality, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. 19. In V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC & Ors., 2005(4) SCT 353 : (2005)7 SCC 338 , the Hon'ble Court observed that the Court sould not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. 20. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India, 2007(2) SCT 72 : AIR 2007 SC 1330 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the writ petition cannot be overlooked. It would depend upon the facts of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years, normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which would be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. 21. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is trite that the discreationary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors., 2004(1) SCT 78 : (2004)1 SCC 347 and in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman & managing Director & Anr. v. K. Thangappan & Anr., 2006(2) SCT 417 : (2006)4 SCC 322. 22. In the instant case, firstly the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers inordinate delay and laches. The order dismissing the petitioner from service is of 20th December, 1991 and writ has been filed almost after 11 years. v. K. Thangappan & Anr., 2006(2) SCT 417 : (2006)4 SCC 322. 22. In the instant case, firstly the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers inordinate delay and laches. The order dismissing the petitioner from service is of 20th December, 1991 and writ has been filed almost after 11 years. Even if taking the case of the petitioner that he filed appeal before the appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector general of Police, Range-Jodhpur almost after 7 years of the order of his dismissal, the appeal came to be filed somewhere in the year 1998 and same came to be dismissed by order dated 31st December, 1998. The review petition against the said order was also not filed promptly but delayed. The petitioner did not approached this Court within reasonable period and therefore, in my view, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. Even on merit, the petitioner failed to furnish the plausible explanation for his having absconding from the duty without sanction of leave on 23rd February, 1989 while he was at Barmer on the post of Police Constable in uniform and remained willfully absent without leave from duty for a long period. He was traceable despite the best efforts made by the respondents, may be for the reason that a criminal case had been registered against him punishable under NDPS Act alleged to have given 5-6 kg, heroin to the co-accused Khema Ram & Nathu Ram and they made the statement under Section of the NDPS Act having received the said conduct of the petitioner even otherwise had not been entitling him any lenient view than the punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent have conduced the enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 by following the procedure prescribed under the law and even sent notice to the petitioner including affixing the copy of the notice at the conspicuous place of his residence where his wife and children were residing as stated by petitioner himself in Annexure-15 and thereafter, published in the newspaper but the fact remains that even after having noticed of the disciplinary proceedings Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, the petitioner did not dare to appear and participate in the departmental inquiry and being participating in the enquiry and therefore, in my view, the respondents were justified in passing the orders impugned Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991, Annexure-12 dated 31st December, 1998 and Annexure-14 dated 3rd July, 2001. 23. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, keeping in view the various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed hereinabove, it cannot be said that of the delinquency. The police Constable in uniform without proper sanction of leave remained absent from duty for a long period and was not traceable despite the best efforts made by the respondents including appointing a Special Officer A.S.I. Faras Ram for his clearly goes that the petitioner voluntarily remained absent without leave for a long period and for such a delinquency, in my view, the appropriate punishment is the dismissal from the service. The respondents have rightly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner turn on their facts and are of no help to the petitioner in view of the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove. 24. In view of the aforesaid referred hereinabove merit in the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, However, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******