JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2008 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2309/2002. 2. Defects as pointed out by the office are waived and heard on merits. 3. The appellant petitioner, by way of the above writ petition , sought quashing of the order dated 20.12.1991 dismissing him from service and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant petitioner while serving with the respondent on the post of Constable, remained absent without leave. The reason for his absconding from duty was that on 21.02.1989 the Custom Officials of Jodhpur recovered 5-6 Kgs of heroin from one Khema Ram Jat and one co-accused Nathu Ram informed the Investigating Agency that they received the said contraband from the appellant-petitioner. Since the moment the co-accused Khema Ram was arrested by the police, the appellant -petitioner absconded from service. Though extensive search was carried out by the respondents, as also by the Investigating Agency investigating crime, but the appellant petitioner could not be traced out. Enquiry was held and the appellant petitioner was dismissed from service. The appellant petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy.Inspector General of Police, Range, Jodhpur which was dismissed by order dated 31.12.1998, against which he preferred a review petition before His Excellency the Governor which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2001, against which the appellant petitioner preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.10.2008. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the appellant has preferred this intra court appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that appellant was falsely implicated in the recovery of alleged contraband and on account of the false implication, he remained absent from duty and due to the false implication, the appellant suffered mental shock and acute depression and he fell seriously ill, as such he was unable to perform his duty and therefore, the appellant sent an application along with medical certificate to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer but the Super intendant of Police without serving any charge sheet or memorandum dismissed the services of the appellant vide order dated 20.12.1991. The alleged accused who were charge sheeted for the offence under the provisions of NDPS Act were also acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the judgment dated 20.10.1992, the appellant filed review application before the Superintendent of Police, Barmer but the same was rejected thereafter, the appellant further submitted a review petition before His Excellency the Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of CCA Rules but the same was rejected thus the action of the appellant cannot be said to be will full absent from the duty and the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant remained will full absent from the duty, therefore held the dismissal order of the learned Single judge as illegal one. 6. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that even looking to the gravity of the misconduct, the penalty imposed by the Super intendant of Police is too harsh and same can be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the facts narrated in the writ petition as well as reply filed by the State Government. 8. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the services were dismissed in 1998 and after a lapse of time, he filed the review petition and further he approached the Court after inordinate delay. 9. Learned Single Judge ordered to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. Learned Single Judge also discussed the matter on merits and held that the petitioner remained will full absent from 23rd February, 1989 for a long time without any information. The conduct of the petitioner was found such so as not entitling him any lenient view then the punishments for dismissal from service. Learned single Judge further observed that appellant was served with notices under the CCA Rules 1958 and also appreciated the fact of quantum of punishment. 10. The conduct of the petitioner was found such so as not entitling him any lenient view then the punishments for dismissal from service. Learned single Judge further observed that appellant was served with notices under the CCA Rules 1958 and also appreciated the fact of quantum of punishment. 10. It is an admitted fact that the appellant remained absent from duty without informing the respondents and it is further admitted fact that the case was registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act and he was served notice under the CCA Rules and after rejection of the review petition, he approached the Court after the lapse of 3 to 4 years without any reasonable or plausible reason. 11. In the above circumstances, the order of learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2008 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety, the same is required to be affirmed. 12. Accordingly, the intra-court appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******