Order 1. The petitioner was formerly working as Shop Supervisor in TASMAC shop No.10517 at Purathakudi Village, Trichy District. The first respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.517/C.V-1/2008, dated 23.01.2008, issued a charge-memorandum against the petitioner, framing as may as several charges. The petitioner denied the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed thereafter. But the Enquiry Officer, without making any enquiry, submitted a report holding the charges proved. Based on the same, the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.517/C.V.1/2008, dated 29.08.2008 has removed the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is not stated that any enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, before passing the impugned order, no enquiry whatsoever was held and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why no appeal was preferred as against the impugned order, he submitted that since the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, no appeal was preferred. 6. I have heard the above submissions. 7. Admittedly, no appeal was preferred as against the impugned order. In a very blind manner, the charges are framed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Though an appeal shall normally lie before the second respondent, since there is violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is maintainable. For these reasons, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.ka.No.517/C.V-1 /2008, dated 29.08.2008 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, however, with liberty to the first respondent to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry in accordance with law and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 are closed.