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 from this requirement infringes the principles of natural justice. The Court further held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be given even where the delinquent employee has not specifically asked for it.
Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that apart from the requirement that charges must be specific, any documents or witnesses proposed to be examined must be made known to the delinquent employee so that they can avail the opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. He emphasized that Rule 7(vii) of the Rules, 1999 clearly provides that in case any witnesses are examined and 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 the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner, an Officiating Principal of Government Polytechnic, Etawah, was proceeded against under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules on a complaint dated 17 January 2025 by one Bablu of Basarhar Block, Etawah, alleging that a senior officer of the institution had sent obscene messages to a girl student. The petitioner was suspended and served a charge-sheet on 8 March 2025. The petitioner pleaded that a Government Order dated 9 May 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 further 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 2 May 2025 was refused.
The Court found that 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. However, the Court held that the complaint was unsupported by affidavit and was 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. The Court observed that Ms. Vinita of the Maths faculty, to whom the student said she had forwarded the messages, ought to have been examined. It further noted that the Inquiry Officer had himself recorded that it could not be confirmed that the messages were sent by the petitioner.
The Court stated that 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 had 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 held that however, even if certain incidents of grave nature come 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 was found to be wanting in the present case.
Setting aside the order dated 11 February 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.