Judgment : 1. The petitioner is presently working as Special Sub Inspector of Police. The disciplinary authority initiated proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge memo dated 17.05.1996. The petitioner submitted his explanation and ultimately he was imposed with punishment of two stages reduction in the scale of pay for one year with cumulative effect. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the fourth respondent. Thereafter, he preferred a review petition before the third respondent. The review petition was rejected on 19.08.1998. A mercy petition was filed later and it was rejected by the third respondent on 21.01.1999. 2. The petitioner was later informed that a co-delinquent filed a mercy petition before the second respondent. The second respondent modified the punishment into one of reduction in pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted a representation requesting the government to modify his punishment. The said request was rejected by the first respondent by order dated 08.04.2008. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. There is no dispute that the punishment imposed on the petitioner has become final on account of the rejection of his mercy petition, on 21.01.1999. The petitioner wanted the second respondent to modify his punishment taking into account the indulgence shown to the co-delinquent. The order rejecting his request was made as early as on 08.04.2008. The petitioner after a period of six years has come up with this Writ Petition. The Writ petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches. The affidavit filed in support of this petition does not contain any details as to why the petitioner kept the matter pending all these years. The petitioner has woke up from slumber and filed the Writ Petition after a period of about six years. I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition belatedly. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.