By the Court.—This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against judgment and order dated 20.5.2009 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1479 of 1993.

2. Record was summoned to show whether any oral inquiry was conducted in this matter or not before imposing major penalty of dismissal upon claimant-respondent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel stated that he has received record and after perusal thereof found that no oral inquiry whatsoever was conducted. He also admitted that Tribunal has already given liberty to petitioner to hold fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

4. In these circumstances, judgment of Tribunal setting aside order of major penalty cannot be faulted inasmuch as it is now settled proposition of law that major penalty cannot be imposed without holding regular inquiry and which includes oral inquiry also.

5. This fact has been noticed by Tribunal in para 6 and 7 of judgment and thereafter following the Division Bench judgment in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, 2001 (1) UPLBEC 54, has held that without conducting oral inquiry, maj