The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 requires the Inquiry Officer to record the oral evidence of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet in the presence of the charged government servant, and any deviation infringes the principles of natural justice.

It held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be given even where the delinquent employee has not specifically asked for it.

Justice Siddharth Nandan held,

“..apart from the fact that the charges should be specific, any documents or witnesses who are proposed to be examined has to be made known to the delinquent employee, so that he can avail the opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses; and more so ever, Rule 7(vii) of Rules, 1999 clearly provides that in case any witnesses are examined and an oral evidence is being recorded, the same has to be done in the presence of the delinquent employee and any deviation of the same, would lead to infringement of principles of natural justice.”

Petitioner, Officiating Principal of Government Polytechnic, Etawah, was proceeded against under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules on a complaint dated 17.01.2025 by one Bablu of Basarhar Block, Etawah, alleging that a senior officer of the institution had sent obscene messages to a girl student. He was suspended and served a charge-sheet on 08.03.2025.

Petitioner pleaded that a Government Order dated 09.05.1992 required the credentials of a complainant against a Class-I State employee to be verified by calling for an affidavit, which was not done. It was pleaded that the charges were vague, that the complainant never appeared to be examined, that the student had herself never complained, and that cross-examination sought by letter dated 02.05.2025 was refused. The statements of the student and the petitioner were recorded on different dates.

Standing counsel submitted that the screenshot relied upon had been restored from the student's phone before a female officer and that the student had categorically stated that the messages came from the petitioner's number.

The Court found the complaint unsupported by affidavit and silent on the contents of the message and the identity of the student. Standing counsel could not show that any restoration of the screenshot had taken place during the inquiry.

It held that Ms. Vinita of the Maths faculty, to whom the student said she had forwarded the messages, ought to have been examined. It observed that the Inquiry Officer had himself recorded that it could not be confirmed that the messages were sent by the petitioner.

“In the present case, the inquiry was initiated on an almost anonymous complainant, who had neither given a complaint on an affidavit, which is a mandatory requirement nor has presented himself during the course of the inquiry, to be examined by the Inquiry Officer or to be cross-examined by the delinquent employee.”

It further held,

“However, even if certain incidents of grave nature comes to the knowledge of the department, it cannot be said that they cannot suo motu initiate an inquiry, but still they have to adhere to the procedure prescribed, under law and also to the principles of audi alteram partem rule; which is found to be wanted in the present case.”

Setting aside the order dated 11.02.2026, the Court directed respondent no. 1 to reinstate the petitioner as Officiating Principal, leaving it open to the authorities to initiate proceedings de novo if the law permits.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order