ORDER

1. The respondent, a Research Assistant in the appellant institute, was removed from service by order dated 22-11-1999. The order of removal having been quashed by the High Court and consequential orders in favour of the respondent having been passed, the institute is in appeal on grant of leave.

2. The order of removal has been quashed on the ground of denial of C opportunity to the respondent to appear and participate in the disciplinary enquiry thus violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court, referring to paras 31 and 32 of the counter-affidavit filed by the institute, in opposition to the writ petition, has come to the conclusion that the respondent employee should have been intimated about the date, time and place of enquiry and the name of the enquiry officer and the evidence should have d been recorded in his presence and he should also have been given opportunity to adduce his evidence despite the fact that the petitioner (respondent herein) never replied to the charge-sheet. The judgment proceeds on the basis that the respondent was never informed about the name of the enquiry officer or about the holding of the enquiry. That is also the stand of the