Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Uttaranchal against the High Court's order quashing the dismissal of a temporary Forest Guard from service.
• The respondent was dismissed for allegedly concealing illegal felling of Sal trees and Kokat species in his beat, despite having certified in departmental diaries that no illicit felling occurred during his visits.
• The enquiry conducted against the respondent suffered from serious infirmities violating the principles of natural justice.
• The Enquiry Officer acted as the Investigator, Prosecutor, and Judge simultaneously, as he personally inspected the forest areas, secured answers from the delinquent, and concluded the enquiry without examining any department witnesses in the respondent's presence.
• The Enquiry Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by recommending a specific punishment (dismissal) in his report, whereas only the disciplinary authority is empowered to propose punishment after considering the report.
• The respondent was not furnished with the enquiry report or the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority passed its order, depriving him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
• The High Court correctly quashed the dismissal orders dated 5.3.1986 and 27.4.1991 due to these procedural flaws, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision.

References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)