JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, J. In the instant petition, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.11.94 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, Respondent No. 1, wherein the order dated 5.12.84 of dismissal of the Petitioner from service by the Addl. District Magistrate (Development), Respondent No. 3, has been upheld. The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was appointed as Junior clerk in the department of Respondent No. 3 in January, 1965 and was confirmed on the said post in 1972. The Petitioner was working as store-keeper-cum cashier from 2.7.72 to 1.7.75 and the Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 4.8.79 directed one Dr. Vinay Kumar Gangwar to conduct the enquiry and submit the report for the irregularities conducted by the Petitioner during the said period. The said report was submitted on 10.10.79 after holding the preliminary enquiry. The Petitioner was suspended on 27.10.79 on the charges of tearing up and manipulation of the pages in the stock register and for misappropriation of the store material. The Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 12.11.79 appointed the enquiry officer and the charge-sheet was served upon the Petitioner on 5.9.81. The Petitioner was asked to submit his reply of the said charge-sheet upto 20.9.81 but he filed his reply on 7.1.82. During the pendency of these proceedings/ the Petitioner filed a Claim Petition No. 365/F/III/84 before the Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, Respondent No. 1, for quashing of the suspension order dated 27.10.79 and for quashing the departmental proceedings on the ground of staleness. The Tribunal vide its order dated 6.9.84 dismissed the petition directing the Respondent No. 3 to complete the enquiry within a period of two months. The enquiry was completed and the order was passed on 5.12.84 dismissing the Petitioner from service (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The order was passed on the basis that the Petitioner had removed 13 pages and tampered with 77 pages of the stock register and misappropriated the store material worth Rs.1,009.50. It appears that the Petitioner had filed a review petition before the Tribunal for reviewing its order dated 6.9.84 and the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.1.85 withdrew the last sentence of the order saying the petition was disposed of. It appears that the Petitioner had filed a review petition before the Tribunal for reviewing its order dated 6.9.84 and the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.1.85 withdrew the last sentence of the order saying the petition was disposed of. Thus, by this order dated 30.1.85 the Tribunal set aside the order of disposal and the claim petition was kept pending. The Petitioner instead of filing a fresh claim petition made an application for amendment on 24.9.86, i.e., after about 1 year and 10 months of the impugned order dated 5.12.84 and prayed that after the amendment, the impugned order dated 5.12.84 dismissing the Petitioner from service may be quashed. From the record of the case, it transpires that the tribunal allowed the application of amendment and heard the matter though ultimately the said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 29.11.94. The Petitioner moved the Instant writ petition on 24.7.95 praying that the order dated 5.12.84 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) dismissing the Petitioner from service be quashed as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 29.11.94 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) be set aside. The Petitioner has approached this Court with delay as he had moved the Tribunal even for the amendment of his claim petition and a usual explanation for delay in filing the instant petition has been given in paragraph No. 21 of the writ petition saying that the Petitioner is a poor man and he was not Informed by his counsel at Lucknow and thus, the delay has accrued. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the Impugned order firstly on the ground that Shri Vinay Kumar Gangwar had conducted the preliminary enquiry and in pursuance of the report submitted by him, the Petitioner was suspended on 27.10.79. The said Shri Gangwar had subsequently been appointed the enquiry officer which was totally illegal and invalid and. thus, the order of removal dated 5.12.84 stands vitiated. The said Shri Gangwar had subsequently been appointed the enquiry officer which was totally illegal and invalid and. thus, the order of removal dated 5.12.84 stands vitiated. The Tribunal after considering the whole case and after analysing the argument of the parties and after perusing the record, gave the following findings.: It is no doubt true that Shri Vlnay Kumar Singh Gangwar, opposite party No. 4, had certainly held this preliminary enquiry and has submitted his enquiry report on the basis of which the Petitioner was suspended and after the suspension order, he was again appointed the enquiry officer in the case but at the same time, it is also an undisputed fact that when after the request by the Petitioner to cross-examine him as a witness, he had immediately returned the enquiry to the Additional District Magistrate (Development), Banda and thereafter the whole of the enquiry proceeding was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (Development), Banda and the impugned punishment order was also passed by him being the appointing authority of the Petitioner. There is no allegation of the Petitioner that the evidence of any of the witness of the case was taken by Shri Vinay Kumar Singh Gangwar or any steps towards the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings effectively was ever taken by him by the time the enquiry was returned by him to the Additional District Magistrate (Development), Banda in view of the matter, we find that no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner even if Shri Vinay Kumar Singh Gangwar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Thus, in view of the above finding, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is untenable and the punishment order cannot be declared as invalid on this ground. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submits that the Petitioner was not supplied the copy of the documents and thus he could not make the effective representation and he could not prosecute his case properly. On this issue, the Tribunal has observed as under: The Petitioner has categorically stated in para 7 of the petition that the copies of the documents were supplied to him and he was also directed to make Inspection of the records vide letter dated 15.12.81 of opposite party No. 4. On this issue, the Tribunal has observed as under: The Petitioner has categorically stated in para 7 of the petition that the copies of the documents were supplied to him and he was also directed to make Inspection of the records vide letter dated 15.12.81 of opposite party No. 4. The copy of the said letter has also been filed as Annexure No. 7 of the petition, a perusal of which clearly shows that the Petitioner was furnished with the copies of the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and was also permitted to inspect the records. Thus, the Petitioner failed to substantiate his case on this score. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submits that the Petitioner was denied the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding as under: As regards the question of denying the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses to him, this contention of the Petitioner also, we find, is contrary to the allegations made by the Petitioner in para 24 of the amended petition, it is categorically stated by the Petitioner that he was allowed the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses only to complete the formalities. in view of the fact, his next allegation that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses is self-contradictory and cannot be accepted. No other point was raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court with much delay and is guilty of laches. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no limitation period so far as the filing of the writ petition, before this Court, is concerned. In the case of Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner and Others, (1983) 2 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is in fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event, one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under rules made by the High Court or by practice. It is in fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event, one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under rules made by the High Court or by practice. In every case, it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the Petitioner is guilty of laches and that could have to bed one without taking into account any specific period as a period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be evidence of laches on the part of the Petitioner. In the instant petition, the decision on this issue is net necessary as the Petitioner failed to substantiate his case on merit on any of the grounds taken by him before this Court. 5. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.