submitted his reply. It is further contended that the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by this Court was not complied with, the petitioner filed a Civil Contempt Application No.6181 of 2018 (Kunwar Dharmendra Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar, District Basic Education Officer Kaushambi and another) before this Court. It is further contended that thereafter certain letters were also written by petitioner to the respondents and ultimately, an order dated 16.1.2019 was passed by the respondent No.2 by which the petitioner was reinstated in service but he was denied to pay full salary for the period of suspension and further directions were given to recover a sum of Rs.2,56,400/- from the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of an exparte enquiry in which the petitioner was not even directed to participate. It is further contended that the order impugned was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers reported at 2010 AIR SCW 3277 dealt with the principles of law while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action. It was held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials-
