ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Pon Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 440 days in filing the writ appeal against the order, dated 18.09.2015, made in W.P. (MD) No. 21231 of 2014. 3. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who was working as a Police Constable, challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him. The allegation was that he tried to misbehave with the lady, who came to the Police Station to lodge a complaint. Based on the complaint given by the said lady, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. Ultimately, the order of compulsory retirement was passed, which was confirmed in the appeal as well as in the review by the Appellate and Revisional Authority respectively. 4. After about four years, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of punishment contending that there are serious procedural irregularities. Further, it is submitted that the criminal case lodged by the said lady against the petitioner was quashed by this Court. 5. The disciplinary authority, who imposed the punishment, observed that though the complainant and the petitioner compromised the criminal case and the proceedings in the criminal case were quashed by this Court, the intention of the petitioner has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts in the departmental enquiry and quashing of the criminal case cannot be a proof of innocence and therefore, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. 6. The Writ Court considered the entire matter and also noted that the writ petition was filed after four years and dismissed the writ petition. 7. The petitioner has once again approached this Court with a delay of 440 days. 8. The affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition does not elaborately state as to how the petitioner was prevented from approaching the Court in time. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to substantiate the contentions by producing certain records, which are medical records, pertaining to the petitioner's wife, who was underwent surgery for removal of Gall Bladder. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to substantiate the contentions by producing certain records, which are medical records, pertaining to the petitioner's wife, who was underwent surgery for removal of Gall Bladder. 10. In our considered view, the medical records of the petitioner's wife show only her health condition and nothing on record shows that owing to the wife's medical condition, the petitioner could not pursue the appeal remedy in time. 11. Thus, for all the above reasons, we are not inclined to condone the delay. 12. In the result, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed and consequently, W.A. (MD) No. SR 3309 of 2017 stands rejected.