Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay, by two stages from Rs.175/- to Rs.166/-,for a period of two years with cumulative effect, on the charge of misconduct; i.e.,negligence of duty in not reporting for duty from 09.01.1976 to 14.02.1976. 2. The petitioner while working as a Police Constable in Chennai City Police, was granted leave from 09.01.1976 to 16.01.1976. However, the petitioner had failed to report for duty on 17.01.1976 on medical ground, as he was hospitalised in Government hospital till 13.02.1976. Immediately on discharge from the hospital, he reported for duty on 14.02.1976. 3. The charge memo was issued to the petitioner for misconduct, alleged negligence of duty in not reporting about the sickness promptly to the competent authority and not intimating about his sickness and of taking treatment in the hospital. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner produced medical report showing that the petitioner was sick and was treated as inpatient and that the petitioner reported for duty on 14.02.1976 immediately on discharge from hospital. 4. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him, i.e. negligence of duty in not reporting about his sickness. The competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, and imposed punishment vide order dated 04.09.1976. 5. The petitioner did not file statutory appeal within a period of limitation but filed the appeal only on 07.02.1989 i.e. after expiry of 13 years. The appellate authority being not satisfied with the explanation given for condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal as time barred. Review filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 6. Though the punishment awarded to the petitioner seems to be on the higher side, the question for determination in the writ petition, is only whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal as time barred. 7. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with exercise of discretion by appellate authority in dealing with the application for condoning the delay. No explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner for condoning the delay of 13 years in filing the appeal. 8. The delay was shocking and therefore, no error can be found in rejection of the appeal as time barred. 9. No explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner for condoning the delay of 13 years in filing the appeal. 8. The delay was shocking and therefore, no error can be found in rejection of the appeal as time barred. 9. The other statutory authorities also accepted the decision of the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal as time barred. 10. In view of the fact that there was no explanation from the petitioner for condoning the delay of 13 years, no ground is made out to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the rules governing the service conditions. No merit, dismissed. No cost.