Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Plot Watcher on daily wages on 01.07.1978. Subsequently, he was absorbed as Forest Guard on time scale of pay on 08.11.1990 and joined duty on 15.11.1990. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified for being promoted to the post of Forester. While so, when he was working as Forest Guard, he was placed under suspension. A charge memo dated 04.05.1998 was issued by the second respondent for derliction of duty for not meeting the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras in respect of STOR No.1/98 and 2/98 dated 23.03.1998 and for not handing over the original records in respect of the said case. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.06.1998 denying the charges and also sought for examination of five witnesses during personal hearing. According to the petitioner, though he was given the file and directed to meet the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras, he could not come to Madras due to his ill-health and therefore, he has applied for leave. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed, who, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report to the disciplinary authoirity. On receipt of the enquiry officers report, the disciplinary authority issued a notice dated 09.03.1999 enclosing the copy of the enquiry report and called upon the petitioner to submit his further explanation. The petitioner also submitted his further explanation on 29.03.1999. According to the petitioner, without accepting his further explanation or without assigning any reasons, the disciplinary authority has passed an order dated 10.05.1999, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect. 2. As against the order of punishment dated 10.05.1999, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 28.06.1999 reiterating the points raised in his further explanation dated 29.03.1999. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority also did not consider any of the points raised by him in the appeal and the appellate authority has summarily rejected the appeal on 05.09.1999 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. After rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred a mercy petition to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 12.09.2002, but the same was not entertained. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition on 27.09.2003 before the first respondent and the revision petition was also rejected on 27.01.2004. 3. After rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred a mercy petition to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 12.09.2002, but the same was not entertained. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition on 27.09.2003 before the first respondent and the revision petition was also rejected on 27.01.2004. The said order dated 27.01.2004 is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which culminated from the original order of punishment dated 10.05.1999. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that on 23.03.1998, the petitioner was directed to meet the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras in connection with sandalwood cases in OR No.1/98 and 2/98 of the Forest Protection Squad, Tirupattur. The petitioner also accepted the said assignment and received the two files relating to the sandal wood case, but the petitioner did not meet the Government Advocate, as directed, on 23.03.1998. Instead, the petitioner has applied for casual leave on 23.03.1998 to one Munusamy, Driver of Forest Protection Squad, Tirupattur and went away without even handing over the file. Therefore, he was suspended from service and a charge memo was issued to him under Rule 17 (b) of the C.C.A. (D&A) Rules. After receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted enquiries on various dates and submitted his report stating that the charges against the petitioner were proved. At the time of enquiry, it was found that the file, which was handed over to the petitioner was not returned in original and that the petitioner had manipulated and prepared bogus records and handed over the same to the office. This has been proved in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and hence, the disciplinary authority, by an order dated 10.05.1999, has awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect on as the petitioner has committed breach of trust. 5. As against the award of punishment dated 10.05.1999, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority gave detailed reasoning and rejected the appeal. The petitioner also filed a mercy petition after four years from the date of rejection of the appeal and therefore it was not entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a revision before the authority and the same was also rejected. The Appellate Authority gave detailed reasoning and rejected the appeal. The petitioner also filed a mercy petition after four years from the date of rejection of the appeal and therefore it was not entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a revision before the authority and the same was also rejected. As the petitioner has failed to handover the original file and manipulated the copies of the documents, the respondents considered it as a serious offence and therefore the punishment imposed on the petitioner is warranted. Inasmuch as the petitioner was undergoing the punishment and there is currency of punishment, he was not considered for inclusion of his name for promotion. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition in the year 2009 to set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority on 10.05.1999. Even the mercy petition was filed by the petitioner after four years from the date of rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority. Even after dismissal of the of the revision petition, only after five years, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. There is a long delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. The petitioner has not assigned any reasons for such an inordinate delay. The revision petition itself was filed by the petitioner to get over the time limit. In any event, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 6. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the writ petition is bad for laches or not. 7. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for derliction of duty and for not handing over the original files pertaining to sandal wood cases to the Government Advocate at High Court, as directed. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to putforth his defence in the enquiry. In fact, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are held proved and the same was also furnished to him. The petitioner also submitted his further representation on 29.03.1999. In fact, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are held proved and the same was also furnished to him. The petitioner also submitted his further representation on 29.03.1999. The disciplinary authority, taking into consideration the report of the enquiry officer and the charges levelled agianst the petitioner, has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect on 10.05.1999. It is also not the case of the petitioner that such a punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the charges made out. 8. As against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 28.06.1999. The appellate authority also, after considering the grounds of appeal and also the order passed by the disciplinary authority, has rejected the appeal on 05.09.1999. The appellate authority has given a clear finding that original file was not handed over by the petitioner and only some papers without signature of the officers concerned alone was produced. The appellate authority has gone into the details of the charges levelled against the petitioner and came to a categorical conclusion that the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority is justified, it is in accordance with law and not disproportionate to the charges framed against the petitioner. 9. As against the order dated 05.09.1999 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioners appeal, which was received by the petitioner on 08.10.1999, as per the endorsement in the original order itself, the petitioner has preferred a mercy petition on 12.09.2002 before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai after a period of three years from the date of rejection of the appeal and therefore the same was not entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a revision petition on 27.09.2003 before the first respondent. At that time, it was pointed out that earlier, a mercy petition was filed before the Principal Conservator of Forest on 12.09.2002 and that was rejected and it was also communicated to him on 17.10.2002. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 05.09.1999 of the appellate authority after a lapse of four years is clearly barred by the period of limitation and therefore the review was rightly rejected on 27.01.2004. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 05.09.1999 of the appellate authority after a lapse of four years is clearly barred by the period of limitation and therefore the review was rightly rejected on 27.01.2004. The petitioner has now chosen to challenge the order dated 10.05.1999 of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment, rejection of the appeal on 05.09.1999 of the appellate authority and the rejection of the revision petition on 27.01.2004 after long lapse of time. The petitioner has not assigned any reasons for the delay. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be summarily rejected on the sole ground of laches. In other words, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 05.09.1999 of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment by filing the present writ petition during the year 2009. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Director General, RPF and others vs. Ch. Sai Babu) (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 331 and (Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited and another) (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 9 for the proposition that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges made out. 11. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Honourable Supreme Court held that judicial review of punishment will arise only if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the judicial conscience and the Court should not ordinarily mould the relief. In this case, the crux of the charge against the petitioner was that the original file handed over to him was tampered with by the petitioner. Considering this serious charge, which would amount to breach of trust, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of for a period of five years with cumulative effect. Such a punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be excessive and I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that unless the punishment imposed by the administrator is illogical or shocking the judicial conscience of the Court, the punishment imposed need not be interfered with. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that unless the punishment imposed by the administrator is illogical or shocking the judicial conscience of the Court, the punishment imposed need not be interfered with. The relevant portion of the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in the decision (Director General, RPF and others vs. Ch. Sai Babu) (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 331 reads as follows:- "6. As is evident from the order of the learned single Judge, there has been no consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including as to the nature of charges held proved against the respondent to say that penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was extreme. Merely because it was felt that the punishment imposed was extreme was not enough to disturb ormodify the punishment imposed on a delinquent officer. The learned single Judge has not recorded reasons to say as to how the punishment imposed on the respondent was shockingly or grossly disproportionate to the graity of charges held proved against the respondent. It is not that in every case of imposing a punishment of removal or dismissal from service a High Court can modify such punishment merely by saying that it is shockingly disproportionate. Normally, the punishment imposed imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained and the department/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works. 12. Similarly, in the decision reported in (Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited and another) (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 9 it was by the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:- "6. 12. Similarly, in the decision reported in (Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited and another) (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 9 it was by the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:- "6. A perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that a Court sitting in appeal against a punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty, however, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court, then the Court would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shortenthe litigation it may make an exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. It is also clear from the abovenoted judgments of this Court, if thepunishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then the Court would interfere in such a case." 13. In this case, as stated supra, the petitioner failed to handover the original file to the department and indulged in manipulating and tampering the records. For such a misconduct the punishment imposed is proportionate and it does not shocks the conscience of this Court in any manner. 14. Even on merits also, the writ petitioner has not made out any case. The petitioner was directed to meet the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras and handover two files relating to the sandal wood cases for the hearing on 23.03.1998. The next day morning, the petitioner, instead of meeting the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras, he handed over a leave letter through one Munusamy without informing the higher authorities thereby he had caused inconvenience in regard to the reaching of the file at High Court, Madras. Further, the petitioner has not handed over the original files to the department. As per the evidence, it is clear that the file handed over by the petitioner even at a much later date also did not contain the signature of the authorities and it contain only certain manipulated documents. Further, the petitioner has not handed over the original files to the department. As per the evidence, it is clear that the file handed over by the petitioner even at a much later date also did not contain the signature of the authorities and it contain only certain manipulated documents. Therefore, the disciplinary authority took the view that it is a serious offence amounting to breach of trust and that an officer, who was asked to hand over the files relating to a criminal case i.e., sandal wood theft case, removed the original records signed by the authorities and replaced it with manipulated documents. Under those circumstances, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years. As this Court is not sitting in appeal over the findings rendered by the administrators, especially when the findings are very clear and based on the records, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 15. It is seen from the records that the disciplinary authority considered the factual aspects in detail and imposed the punishment, which in my view, is commensurate with the charges and it cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges. The appellate authority also considered the appeal filed by the petitioner in detail and rejected the appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the appellate authority has simply rejected the appeal without assigning any reason. In fact, the appellate authority has passed a detailed order by applying his mind. The petitioner remained silent for a long time and filed a mercy petition after a long delay, which was not entertained. Thereafter, a revision was filed which was rejected on 27.01.2004. After five years from the date of rejection of the revision petition, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition, that too without assigning any reasons for such delay. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is excessive or that the appellate authority has rejected the appeal without properly considering his claim. In my opinion, the respondents have passed the orders in accordance with law and therefore, I am of the view that the orders passed by the respondents warrants any interference at all. 16. In my opinion, the respondents have passed the orders in accordance with law and therefore, I am of the view that the orders passed by the respondents warrants any interference at all. 16. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.