Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90218 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 72088 of 2005 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P. Singh,Anubhav Singh,Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Daya Ram,P.C. Pathak Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Anubhav Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Meva Lal Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. 2. This writ petition is pending since 2005, i.e., for last more than two decades. 3. It is very unfortunate that the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution earlier on two occasions, firstly on 24.08.2018. Order dated 24.08.2018 was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court by filing Special Appeal No. 926 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2018 and matter was remitted to Single Judge to decide case afresh. However, writ petition was again dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.12.2019 and it was restored on 05.12.2023, i.e., after about four years. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner who was appointed in the year 1977 was served with a charge sheet after about 20 years on 17.02.1998. Reply to charge sheet was submitted by petitioner, however, when no decision was taken, petitioner filed present writ petition in 2005 with initial prayer to decide his representation. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on 15.01.2006, for the first time a copy of orders dated 12.11.1998 and 17.11.1998 was placed on record that petitioner was terminated from service. It has necessitated to file an amendment application, which was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2008. Still thereafter matter remained pending. 6. The argument which has merit is that, an inquiry report was neither served upon petitioner nor placed in counter affidavit filed by Committee of Management. Even order of approval granted by District Basic Education Officer concerned has not referred about any inquiry report and, therefore, petitioner has suffered with an illegal termination order since no inquiry was conducted and major penalty was imposed by way of impugned order. Respondents-4 and 5 are proceeded ex parte by an order dated 17.04.2025. 7. In aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note that petitioner was out of service since 1998 and presently he is about 75 years of age. Therefore, at this stage, instead of passing a direction that petitioner may be considered in service on notional basis and benefit be given, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that State-Respondents will pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lacs to petitioner within a short period, which cannot exceed more than six months and it could be recovered from Committee of Management of concerned School since due to their conduct, by conducting an absolutely improper inquiry, petitioner has suffered. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad