ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. This is a thoroughly misconceived and ill advised appeal and unnecessarily has been carried up to this Court, may be to harass employee concerned, who was imposed punishment of dismissal without holding any oral enquiry and that is why learned Single Judge vide judgment in appeal held that major penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed in a summary enquiry without holding any regular departmental enquiry which would include oral enquiry.

3. Law is well settled in this regard and this Court may usefully refer few recent judgments of Supreme Court and a series of decisions of this Court on this aspect.

4. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 : (2010) 2 SCC 772 : LNIND 2010 SC 136, Court has held:-

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the