ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 30.09.2009 (Annex.4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, 18.06.2018 (Annex.6) passed by the Appellate Authority and 31.05.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the Reviewing Authority. 2. The petitioner, who was serving as Constable with 5th Battalion, RAC, Jaipur, was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.01.2009. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave his report finding the petitioner guilty of charges. On notice being issued, the petitioner give a response. By order dated 30.09.2009 (Annex.4), the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed punishment of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. 3. After the punishment was imposed in the year 2009, the petitioner filed an appeal on 05.06.2018 (Annex.5) and in para 13 of the appeal indicated that the mental state of the petitioner for a long time was not proper and his family circumstances were also such that he could not file the appeal in time. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 18.06.2018 (Annex.6), rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by order of rejection of appeal, filed review petition before the Governor, the review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected by indicating that against the original order, the same was barred by limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that rejection of petitioner's appeal and review as barred by limitation were not justified as the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the guilt found and therefore, it was incumbent on the Appellate / Reviewing Authority to interfere with the orders passed. 6. Submissions have been made that the petitioner had indicated that his mental state and family circumstances were such that he could not file appeal in time, which aspect has not been considered and therefore also, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the order dated 30.09.2019 (Annex.4) was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and effect thereof was immediately given. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the order dated 30.09.2019 (Annex.4) was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and effect thereof was immediately given. The petitioner did not challenge the order for over 09 years and in 2018, while filing the appeal, the following reason was indicated in the appeal itself seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal :- ^^¼13½ ;g gS fd vihykFkhZ dh yacs le; ls ekufld fLFkfr Bhd ugha gksus o ikfjokfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa vuqdqy u gksus ds dkj.k le;kof/k esa gLrxr vihy izLrqr ugha dj ldk gS o vc vihykFkhZ gLrxr vihy Jheku ds le{k izLrqr dj jgk gSA ftlesa gqbZ nsjh dks U;k;fgr esa {kek Qjekdj vihy dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkfjr dj vuqxzfgr djkosA** 9. Provisions of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 provides a limitation of three months from the date of order and the appeal was filed after about 09 years with the above quoted explanation, which explanation is apparently cursory and cannot be said to be sufficient for condoning the delay of 09 years when the punishment itself had come into effect immediately on passing of the order. 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of passing of the orders. Further even in support of his mental state and family circumstance, nothing was indicated nor the same has been produced before the Reviewing Authority so as to allege any non-consideration by the Appellate / Reviewing Authority. 11. In view thereof, no case for condonation of 09 years' delay before the Appellate Authority / Reviewing Authority was made out by the petitioner and as such, the orders impugned passed by two authorities do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.