HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14947 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing counsel for the State and Ms. Bushra Maryam, counsel for District Judgeship. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was appointed as a class IV employee in the District Court, Maharajganj and was later promoted as Miscellaneous Clerk (Class III) and thereafter post conduction of the inquiry, his services came to be terminated by the District Judge, Maharajganj, third respondent against which the writ petitioner preferred a Departmental Appeal No. 7 of 2016 which came to be decided on 09.03.2017 by the Administrative Judge, Session Division, Maharajganj, second respondent modifying the punishment of dismissal to reverting back the writ petitioner from the post of Miscellaneous Clerk (Class IV) employee to the post of orderly Class IV. The rule of 'no work no pay' was also made applicable. 3. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the orders dated 11.12.2015 passed by the District Judge, Maharajganj dismissing the writ petitioner from service and the order of Administrative Judge reverting the writ petitioner from Class III employee to Class IV employee cannot be sustained as there has been a violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry and the order of reversion itself is not commensurate to the gravity of the charges being disproportionate and its shocks the consciousness Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Dileep Kumar Agnihotri, Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Mishra, C.S.C. Girish Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Ms. Bushra Maryam on the other hand submits that the present writ petition is barred by delay and latches, particularly, wherein post decision in the appeal on 09.03.2017, the present petition has been presented before this Court on 21.09.2025 that too approximately after eight years and there has been no explanation worth consideration for condonation of delay. Submission is that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted after putting to notice the writ petitioner and giving opportunity but the writ petitioner- delinquent employee did not participate and avoided inquiry proceedings. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record. 7. Apparently, while the writ petitioner was posted as Miscellaneous Clerk in Judgeship of Maharajganj, a complaint was lodged before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Maharajganj by one Smt. Radhika alleging that the Misc. Application No. 492 of 2014 (Smt. Radhika v. Ramjus) was presented for argument and orders and after argument, order was reserved in the said application and thereafter the writ petitioner was not producing the file. On the basis of the complaints, a preliminary inquiry was directed to be initiated against the writ petitioner on 01.12.2014, the writ petitioner was directed to submit his explanation by 03.12.2014 but the writ petitioner- delinquent employee did not submit his reply thereafter dates were fixed seeking reply of the delinquent on 24.12.2014 inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report before the District Judge, findings substance in the complaint, a departmental chargesheet came to be issued requiring the delinquent to submit his reply by 24.03.2025. However, the writ petitioner did not submit his reply and also did not participate in the inquiry proceedings on 12.10.2015 inquiry officer tendered his inquiry report. a show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report was served upon the writ petitioner show causing the writ petitioner that why the proceedings under the Rules initiated against him. After considering the inquiry report, the services of the writ petitioner was dispensed with. 8. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner to emphasize upon the facts showing when there was breach of principles of natural justice in the departmental proceedings, the answer is in negative, nothing has been argued or brought on record except bald allegations. The order of the disciplinary authority as well as of the administrative, explicitly shows that at each and every point of time, the writ petitioner- delinquent WRIA No. 14947 of 2025 2 was put to notice and was accorded opportunity but he did not avail the same. Thus this Court does not find any infirmity in the inquiry proceedings. 9. As regards, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges is concerned, the same is preposterous and out of context for the simple reason that the said aspect of the matter has already been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and the Court does not find that there happens to be any iota of evidence to suggest that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 10. Even otherwise, the Court finds that appeal appellate order is dated 09.03.2017 and the present writ petition has been preferred in the month of September, 2025 and in para-10 in order to overcome the hurdle of delay, the following has been averred as under: "10. That the petitioner submits that the delay in filing this writ petition is due to bona fide reasons, including financial constraints, health issues, and the time taken to gather necessary documents and legal assistance. The petitioner, a low-income employee, faced significant hardship following his reversion to Class IV, which affected his ability to approach this Hon'ble Court earlier." 11. The aforesaid explanation is not worth consideration, resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. October 13, 2025 A. Prajapati WRIA No. 14947 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad