The Allahabad High Court has set aside a disciplinary order against an Officiating Principal of Government Polytechnic, Etawah, holding that departmental inquiries must strictly follow the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Justice Siddharth Nandan ruled that when witnesses are relied upon in a departmental inquiry, their oral evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charged employee, who must be given an opportunity to cross-examine them.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Anil Kumar Yadav, had been working as Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at Government Polytechnic, Etawah, and was appointed Officiating Principal in 2023. A complaint was submitted by a person named Bablu on January 17, 2025, alleging that a senior officer of the institution had sent inappropriate messages to a girl student.
An inquiry was initiated under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules and Yadav was suspended. A charge-sheet followed on March 8, 2025. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, arguing that the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the charges did not identify the student or specify the alleged messages, and witnesses were not produced for cross-examination.
The inquiry relied substantially on screenshots of messages. However, the Inquiry Officer noted that the screenshots did not contain the petitioner's mobile number and that it could not be conclusively established that the messages had been sent by him. The faculty member, Ms. Vinita, whom the student allegedly approached and to whom the messages were reportedly forwarded, was also not examined.
Court's Observation
The High Court focused on Rule 7(vii), which expressly requires witnesses named in the charge-sheet to be examined in the presence of the charged employee and provides an opportunity for cross-examination.
"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."
The Court further held that the duty to follow natural justice does not depend upon the employee making a specific request for cross-examination. It also noted that the student’s statement had been recorded without informing the petitioner of the inquiry on that date.
Decision
The Court found that the inquiry had not followed the procedure required under the 1999 Rules and principles of natural justice. It therefore set aside the order dated February 11, 2026, and directed the authorities to reinstate Anil Kumar Yadav as Officiating Principal of Government Polytechnic, Etawah.
The Court clarified that the authorities would remain free to initiate fresh proceedings if permitted by law, but any such proceedings must strictly comply with the applicable rules and principles of natural justice.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Number: Writ-A No. 4701 of 2026
Judge: Justice Siddharth Nandan
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
