ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. The appellant herein was dismissed from service by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court on the charge of the appellant having conspired to commit embezzlement of service stamps worth Rs. 20,000. The appellant was also prosecuted in a criminal court for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 477-A of the Penal Code, 1860. After dismissal from service, the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Administrative Committee consisting of two learned Judges of the High Court. Thereafter, it appears that the appellant filed a writ petition questioning the validity and correctness of the order of his dismissal which was dismissed and a special leave petition filed against the order passed in the writ petition was also dismissed. The matter was left at that by the appellant waiting and watching the criminal proceedings. Finally, by the order dated 12-11-1997 the appellant was acquitted. He started a fresh battle again questioning the validity and correctness of the order of dismissal and with a prayer that he might be reinstated in service. The High Court by a well-considered order on all counts, dismissed the writ petition. In doing so, the High Court has categorically recorded that the appellant sought for quashing the order of dismissal after a period of 15 years, 7 months and 22 days; even the civil suit at that point of time also could not be maintained as barred by limitation. Incidentally, the High Court also noticed in the order that in the ordinary course the appellant would have attained superannuation and retired from service on 13-12-1995 i.e. much earlier to the passing of the order of acquittal by the High Court in the criminal case. 2. Mr R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the appellant could not have approached the High Court earlier; he could do so only after he was acquitted by the High Court in the year 1997. According to the learned counsel the delay in filing the writ petition was not material in the given set of facts of the present case, so also the dismissal of the earlier writ petition by a non-speaking order. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel representing the respondent High Court made submissions supporting the impugned order. 3. A plain reading of the impugned order shows that it is an appropriate one. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel representing the respondent High Court made submissions supporting the impugned order. 3. A plain reading of the impugned order shows that it is an appropriate one. At any rate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The fact remains that the order of dismissal was made in the year 1983, validity of which was questioned after 15 years as observed by the High Court. Looking from any angle the impugned order is perfectly justified. 4. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed. 5. No costs. Appeal dismissed.