Inquiry based on anonymous complaint without proper affidavit or cross-examination opportunity held invalid; Lecturer reinstated with direction for fresh inquiry adhering to due process
In a significant judgment dated August 21, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Siddharth Nandan, set aside a departmental inquiry initiated against Anil Kumar Yadav, a Government Polytechnic lecturer and Officiating Principal, on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The inquiry, which led to the petitioner’s suspension, was found to be fundamentally flawed due to procedural irregularities including lack of proper notice, denial of cross-examination, and reliance on an unverified anonymous complaint.
The case arose when a complaint was filed on January 17, 2025, by an individual named Bablu from Basarhar Block, Etawah, alleging inappropriate conduct by the petitioner towards a student. The complaint was neither supported by an affidavit nor was the complainant or the purported student complainant examined during the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner challenged the inquiry on the basis that the complaint failed to meet the mandatory government requirement for affidavits for Class-I employees and that the inquiry officer did not provide him the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, contrary to Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
The Court scrutinized the inquiry procedure and found that the inquiry officer recorded the student’s statement without informing the petitioner of the date and time of the inquiry, thus denying him the right to be present and cross-examine. The charge sheet was vague, lacking details such as the name of the student or the exact content of the alleged indecent messages. Moreover, the only evidence was a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation without corroborative proof linking it conclusively to the petitioner, as the mobile number was not displayed.
The Court emphasized that departmental inquiries, being quasi-judicial in nature, must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which mandates clear notice of charges, opportunity to defend, and cross-examination of witnesses. The Court noted precedents including the Allahabad High Court’s own decision in Abdul Salam v. State of U.P. and a recent Orissa High Court ruling in Debaraj Sahoo v. Union of India, which underscored the necessity of these procedural safeguards.
Given these findings, the Court declared the inquiry and the subsequent suspension order invalid and directed the immediate reinstatement of Anil Kumar Yadav to his post as Officiating Principal of the Government Polytechnic, Etawah. However, the Court permitted the State authorities to initiate fresh departmental proceedings if they so desired, provided that the inquiry strictly complies with the 1999 Rules and principles of natural justice.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of government employees against arbitrary and procedurally defective inquiries, underscoring the necessity of fairness even in serious allegations.
Bottom Line:
Departmental inquiry must strictly adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right of the delinquent employee to cross-examine witnesses, and proper intimation of inquiry proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Rule 7(vii) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2967605
