Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140713 Reserved on : 13.08.2025 Delivered on : 19.08.2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12856 of 2024 Petitioner :- Moolchand Saroj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Aditiya Kumar Singh,Avadhesh Kumar Upadhyay,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Aditiya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. In the present case, following facts are not under dispute :- (a) Petitioner was appointed to the post of Mali (Gardner) i.e. a class IV employee on 16.08.1994 and he was served with a charge-sheet on 30.08.2018 i.e. after 24 years and was put under suspension on ground that he has not followed orders of higher Officers, he was undisciplined, he remained absent from the work, he was not diligent towards his duties and has occupied illegally a land of the State. (b) Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 18.004.2019 that when he has entered into services, he has submitted a false document of his educational document that he has passed class 5th,, which was found false on verification at later stage. (e) The petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 30.08.2019, which was challenged by way of writ petition No.12493 of 2023, since the inquiry was not concluded and he remained suspend for many years. 3. This Court by an order dated 02.08.2023 stayed the operation of order of suspension and later on it was revoked by an order dated 07.08.2023. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 07.08.2023 that why not a major punishment be passed against him. 4. A second inquiry report dated 18.04.2024 was also prepared, however, according to petitioner’s case, it was not served upon and finally he was dismissed on 23.04.2024, just before his date of retirement i.e. 30.04.2024. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was no prescribed educational qualification for the post of Mali in the year 1994 since at that time there was no service rules in this regard. The purported documents were placed by the respondents with malafide intention. The petitioner has already served punishments in pursuance of earlier proceedings which cannot be a ground for subsequent major dismissal since it would be a case of double jeopardy. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that wife of petitioner has an allotment under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue and it has been still not cancelled, therefore, it cannot be a ground for disciplinary proceedings. He further submitted that proper inquiry was not conducted 2 of 4 and inquiry report was not submitted, therefore, as such principle of natural justice were not followed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for State refers the document annexed along with pleadings that petitioner himself submitted a form that he has passed 5th class, however, later on i.e. after verification it was found false. A case is pending against allotment of land. The petitioner was earlier served with punishments, however, he has not improved his conduct. 8. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. The respondents have not able to show any service Rules that at the time of recruitment of petitioner on post of Mali, he must possess any educational qualification, therefore, even it is considered that educational qualification was wrongly submitted, it could not be a ground to dismiss the petitioner after as many as 30 years. 10. In the above background, the Court also takes note that no inquiry report was submitted to the petitioner along with show-cause notice as well as respondents are also not produced a copy of inquiry report, therefore, the process of decision making was de hors of prescribed procedure and as such its outcome cannot be justified. 11. So far as allegations are concerned that petitioner and his wife has got illegal allotment of the State. Nothing adverse brought on record that it has been cancelled by a due process as well as that since no proper inquiry was conducted, even within the limited scope of review in disciplinary proceedings, since due process was not followed 3 of 4 as well as that has held in Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others, 2024 INSC 1034, that employment may not interfere after substantial period of time which is about three decades in the present case, even it was irregular. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.08.2025 P. Pandey 4 of 4 Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad