JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7 November 2014, dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant was serving on the post of Mukhya Sevika in the office of the Child Development Project Officer at Gorakhpur city. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 23 July 1999. Three charges were levelled against the appellant; (i) During the course of her tenure as Mukhya Sevika, contracts for the work of providing food, stationery and transportation had been awarded to the spouse of the appellant, which constituted a misconduct; (ii) On 16 July 1999, the Additional Director (Finance) had conducted a surprise inspection and it was found that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent and her spouse put a forged signature on the attendance register; (iii) The appellant had, in collusion with her husband, obstructed and interfered with the performance of official work and was guilty of indisciplined behaviour. The appellant submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 10 September 1999. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 14 October 1999 and held the appellant guilty of the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the appellant by a show cause notice dated 22 October 1999 to which the appellant submitted a reply on 3 November 1999. On 15 November 1999, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service. In a departmental appeal, the Appellate Authority, while affirming the findings which were recorded against the appellant of the commission of a misconduct, held that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Accordingly, the punishment was modified from an order of removal from service to an order for withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and a censure entry was also awarded. The learned Single Judge was moved in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned judgment and order, no substance has been found in the petition. It has, consequently been dismissed. 3. The principal point which has been urged in support of the appeal is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the grievance of the appellant that the report of the Enquiry Officer was ex parte and as a matter of fact, no enquiry had been conducted. It has, consequently been dismissed. 3. The principal point which has been urged in support of the appeal is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the grievance of the appellant that the report of the Enquiry Officer was ex parte and as a matter of fact, no enquiry had been conducted. In order to assess the validity of the submission, it will be appropriate to have due regard to the averments in the writ petition and the counter traversing the averments. The averments of the appellant in regard to the breach of the principles of natural justice are contained in paragraphs 16 to 20 of the writ petition. The appellant averred that the Enquiry Officer had fixed two dates of hearing. On 13 September 1999, a letter was addressed to the appellant for an enquiry, which was to be conducted on 16 September 1999. On 16 September 1999, the appellant was informed that the enquiry would be held on 17 September 1999 and a letter was accordingly issued. On 17 September 1999, the Enquiry Officer was not present and no enquiry was held. However, the appellant learnt that on the instructions of the Director, the Enquiry officer had submitted a report on 14 October 1999. The grievance of the appellant was that the Enquiry Officer, while submitting his report did not even refer to the dates of hearing of 16 and 17 September 1999. Thus, the relevant factual foundation for a plea of a breach of natural justice was laid out in the writ proceedings. 4. The counter affidavit, which was filed by the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Allahabad, contains only a vague denial of the averments contained in paragraph 16 to 20. The only statement, worth mentioning is a statement that the enquiry was conducted strictly according to law. There was no specific denial of the averments which were made in the writ petition in regard to the dates on which the hearing before the Enquiry Officer was fixed and to the fact that no enquiry was actually conducted. Evidently, this aspect has, with respect, not been duly considered in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. There was thus, on the basis of the admitted material on the record, a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Evidently, this aspect has, with respect, not been duly considered in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. There was thus, on the basis of the admitted material on the record, a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Once, it is established that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice, the order of the Appellate Authority would have to be set aside. The Appellate Authority, as noted earlier, has modified the punishment by reducing it from an order of removal to an order for the withholding of three increments, with cumulative effect together with a censure entry in the service records. Since there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice, the Enquiry Officer would have to be granted liberty to proceed with the enquiry, in accordance with law from the stage at which the principles of natural justice have been violated and to conclude the enquiry afresh after due opportunity to the petitioner. 6. To facilitate this exercise, we allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7 November 2014. The order of punishment dated 15 November 1999 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26 April 2001, shall accordingly stand set aside. However, we grant liberty to the Enquiry Officer to take up the enquiry from the stage at which the breach of the principles of natural justice had occurred and to pass fresh orders, after a due opportunity to the appellant, in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.