JUDGEMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. 1. This Special Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 28-06-2005 in Writ Petition No. 961 (S/S) of 2003. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. While the petitioner was employed as Assistant Manager, Station Sub-Area Canteen, Extension Counter, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect, as per order dated 05-06-2003. Challenging the suspension order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 263 (S/S) of 2003 and by interim order dated 20-06-2003, the operation of the suspension order dated 05-06-2003 was stayed by this Court. While the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14-07-2003. Challenging the dismissal order dated 14-07-2003 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9'61 (S/S) of 2003. The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 28-06-2005. Aggrieved by the judgment quashing the order of dismissal, the respondents in the writ petition have filed this appeal. 3.We have heard Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M .C. Pant, Advocate who accepted notice for the respondent. 4. The order of dismissal was quashed by the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that the petitioner was dismissed from service without conducting a proper enquiry as envisaged in Paragraph 47 of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The appellants had no case before the learned Single Judge that the Standard Operating Procedure is not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. The appellants also could not dispute that an enquiry as envisaged in Paragraph 47 of the Standard Operating Procedure had been conducted before dismissing the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, in our view, the learned Single Judge was right and justified in quashing the order of dismissal. 5.However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge did not reserve the right of the appellants to take fresh action against the respondent in accordance with law. Learned counsel requested that even if the quashing of the order of dismissal is upheld, liberty may be given to the appellants to take fresh action against the respondent in accordance with law. Learned counsel requested that even if the quashing of the order of dismissal is upheld, liberty may be given to the appellants to take fresh action against the respondent in accordance with law. Since the impugned order of dismissal was quashed only on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Paragraph 47 of the Standard Operating Procedure had not been followed before dismissing the petitioner from service, we are of the view that the learned. Single Judge ought to have reserved the right of the appellants to initiate fresh action against the respondent in accordance with law. When an order of dismissal is quashed by the Court only on the ground of procedural irregularities and not on the ground of invalidity or insufficiency of the reason for dismissal, the Court is bound to give an opportunity to the competent authority to take fresh action against the delinquent employee in accordance with law. While quashing an order on such technical grounds the authority cannot be deprived of its right to take fresh action in accordance with law. Hence while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent it quashed the impugned order of dismissal, we deem it just and proper to reserve to the appellants the right to take fresh action against the respondent in accordance with law. 6. For the reasons stated above, the Special Appeal is disposed of in the following terms : (i) The judgment to the extent it quashed the impugned order of dismissal, is upheld. (ii) Notwithstanding the quashing of the impugned order of dismissal, the appellants will be free to take fresh action against the respondent in accordance with law and complying with the principles of natural justice. (iii) Without prejudice to their right to take fresh action in accordance with law, the appellants shall reinstate the respondent in service within one week from today. However, the appellants will be at liberty to assign any duties to the respondent, which could have been assigned to him under the terms of his employment.