JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Y.S. Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order impugned dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department of the State Government, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of an inquiry report submitted before him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out several procedural irregularities in conducting the inquiry and thus has complained the violation of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 (in short 'the Rules, 1999'). The petitioner has, very specifically, stated that before submitting the reply of the charge-sheet, he had demanded several relevant documents through letter dated 23.02.2015, which was received by the Inquiry Officer on 10.03.2015 but no such document was provided to him. Further it has been submitted that petitioner was also not provided any opportunity of oral inquiry nor was fixed any date, time and place for inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. 4. The charge-sheet itself reveals that the charges levelled against the petitioner are based on several evidences but no complete evidence was provided to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has mentioned in the inquiry report that his conclusion is based on charges as well as reply thereof submitted by the petitioner. The respondents have come forward to file counter affidavit in which they have not denied clearly the statement of the aforesaid facts rather it was stated that in case the petitioner wants to examine and cross-examine the witness, he may submit a request before the Inquiry Officer but the petitioner has neither put his demand for personal hearing nor for examination and cross-examination of witness. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. Clause-VII of which speaks that 'where the charged Government servant denies the charges the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence: 6. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence: 6. Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness'. 7. The reply submitted by the petitioner has also been brought on record, which indicates that the petitioner has mentioned several documents, which have been shown to be necessary documents for examination as well as evidence but those were not provided to him. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the Inquiry Officer has failed to satisfy the procedure provided under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, therefore, we have arrived at conclusion that the matter requires interference of this Court. Since the defect in the inquiry, which has been pointed out by the petitioner, relates to the stage after submission of reply of charge-sheet, we hereby call upon the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry afresh after the stage of filing of reply of charge-sheet in accordance with the procedure provided under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and conclude the same accordingly. After conclusion of inquiry, he shall submit inquiry report to the disciplinary authority for his final decision. It is hereby further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry at each and every stage without seeking adjournment unless there is a cogent reason. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the order impugned dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department of the State Government is hereby quashed. 10. At this stage, we are informed that since the respondents had failed to conclude the inquiry within the stipulated period fixed therefor by the Court, the petitioner has been reinstated in service. The aforesaid facts are recorded. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.