Deepak Gupta, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3115 of 2003 whereby he rejected the writ petition as being barred by principles of delay and laches.

2. The undisputed facts are that the writ petitioner Radhe Shyam Shukla was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk/Cashier on 10.02.1967 in Municipal Council, Mungeli. On 12.06.1969, the order (Annexure P/1 with the writ petition) was passed suspending the Petitioner on the allegation that the writ Petitioner had embezzled some funds of the Municipal Council, Mungeli. It is also apparent that some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and the memorandum of charges have been attached as Annexure P/2 to the petition. There is also a communication of the Petitioner on record dated 03.07.1970 in which he has stated that he would file his list of witnesses after the evidence of prosecution is led. Obviously, this application which is addressed to the President of Municipal Council relates to some disciplinary proceedings.

3. On 27.09.1975, an order was passed terminating services of the Petitioner on the ground that his service is no longer required. In the said order, it was also mentioned that in case the writ petitioner is found guilty by the Courts, then the amount which he had embezzled would be recovered from him or his guarantors and if necessary, by sale of his movable and immovable property. This order was never challenged by the Petitioner at that time. Two criminal cases were filed against the Petitioner. In one criminal case being 715 of 1969, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 16.11.1987. In the second criminal case, being Criminal Case No. 716 of 1969, the Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on 28.08.1987. However, vide judgment dated 03.07.2002, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 1997, the Petitioner was acquitted in this case also.

4. Immediately after his acquittal, the Petitioner filed an application on 03.10.2002 seeking permission to resume his duties. He sent a reminder in this behalf on 08.11.2002. When he received no reply, he filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 2635 of 2002. It appears that in this writ petition, an order was passed on 08.04.2003 directing the Respondents to decide representation of the writ petitioner within two months from the date of filing of representation. Therefore, it appears that this Court permitted the Petitioner to make a representation. This representation was rejected by the Municipal Council, Mungeli. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to give any explanation to explain the delay and laches which took place between 1975 and 2002.

5. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel has urged that the learned Single Judge sitting singly should not have virtually sat in judgment over the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition. The second submission is that the order dated 27.09.1975 is on the face of it illegal and since it is an illegal order, delay and laches should not come in the way for setting aside the order. He also submits that in this case if relief is given to the Petitioner, no other person is going to be affected. It was urged that since the order is illegal, this Court should not perpetuate illegality only on the ground of delay and laches.

6. As far as the first submission is concerned, we are not at all in agreement with Shri Tiwari. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, has in no manner sat over the judgment of the earlier order passed in writ petition. All that was decided in the earlier writ petition was the Petitioner was allowed to make a representation and if such representation was made, then it should be considered and decided within a period of two month