the argument raised on behalf of the appellant/writ-petitioner was that the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer was based on surmises and conjectures. There was total misreading of the statement of the witnesses inasmuch as none of the witnesses supported the case of the respondent department in regard to the allegation of second marriage allegedly contracted by the appellant/writ-petitioner. The order of dismissal from service was based on perverse finding in the enquiry report, rather the order was based on surmises and conjectures. The learned Single Judge observed that even though the appellant/writ-petitioner sought to build a case with reference to the findings recorded in the enquiry report but copy of the enquiry report, which was sought to be assailed, was not placed on record. The order of dismissal placed on record cannot be taken as substitute of the detailed enquiry report. It was held that to adjudicate the issue in reference to the argument, the appellant/writ-petitioner should have filed copy of the enquiry report, which was not before the Court, therefore, the basic and only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner could not be decided in his favour. It was held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner, wherein it was held that the enquiry report cannot be founded on mere ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the appellant/writ-petitioner failed to show the application thereof to the facts of the case in hand. Additionally, the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the argument of the appellant/writpetitioner, held that in the order of dismissal the disciplinary authority has made reference to the statements of few witnesses
