STATE OF U.P. vs T.P. LAL SRIVASTAVA

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the respondent, a Senior Marketing Inspector, was improper as the High Court erroneously set aside the order due to lack of document supply. The Court emphasized that the respondent's failure to respond to the charge-sheet did not absolve the appellants from conducting an ex-parte enquiry to determine the validity of the charges. The Court allowed the appeal, directing that an enquiry be conducted and the respondent be kept under suspension until the enquiry's conclusion, thereby establishing the principle that due process must be followed even in cases of non-response.