1. By the medium of instant petition, petitioner avers that he had been appointed as a Constable in the year 1991 and he has been discharged from service mechanically without enquiry and without affording him opportunity of hearing. 2. Respondents resisted the petition and submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender, had earned 07 major and 08 minor punishments from the year 1991 to 1998, he remained unauthorizedly absent for a pretty long time, therefore, taking note of his long absence and his conduct, respondents discharged him from the service in the year 1998. It is stated further that petitioner did not turn up even after his termination, however, he came up with an application in the year 2001, requesting the then Commandant for accepting his resignation. The application was accepted and he was discharged from service on 29.12.2001. Respondents further state that writ petition is caught by the principle of delay and latches. 3. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 4. It appears that petitioner after having tendered a resignation and after having been discharged from service, has remained contended till the filing of instant petition, on the advice of his counsel, in the year 2012 after a lapse of more than eleven years. 5. Petitioner has not explained the delay of 11 years, however, has filed a supplementary affidavit and has tried to make an attempt to project some cause with a legal colouring, but has failed. 6. It is a common knowledge that at the end of every month, public servants get their salary and if for some reasons, it is stopped or withheld in some case, such employee is reasonably expected to approach the department he is working in to find out the reasons for withholding of his salary. In the instant case, the story is reverse, petitioner, a public servant who is appointed to perform the sensitive job in a disciplined organization for upholding the rule of law, has not bothered for years together to confirm the consequences of his unauthorized absence for a pretty long time. 7. This has been the consistent view of this court that a police cop cannot be treated at par with the public servants performing duties in a civil department. He is expected to be a man of utmost integrity and should be dedicated towards the cause he has been appointed for. 7. This has been the consistent view of this court that a police cop cannot be treated at par with the public servants performing duties in a civil department. He is expected to be a man of utmost integrity and should be dedicated towards the cause he has been appointed for. In the instant case, petitioner has chosen not to perform the duties he was appointed for and nothing is known for his whereabouts during the period he remained absent. 8. The writ petition is primarily caught by the principles of delay and latches, therefore, cannot survive the test of the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this court, of which incidentally I was the member, in a case titled State v. Ghulam Nabi Bhat LPA Nos. 218/2005, 219/2005 & 109/2006 decided on 8th October, 2007, reported as 2008 (1) JKJ [HC] 566 : 2008 SLJ 15. 9. For all what has been stated hereinbefore, the writ petition is held to be not even pennyworth to record agreement with the averments urged in its support. It is accordingly, dismissed along with all CMPs.