IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6383 of 2010 1. Ajay Kumar Sinha S/O Late Jay Prakash Narayan R/O Moh White House Compound , P.S.Rampur In The District Of Gaya 2. Nageshwar Paswan S/O Sri Buttu Ram R/O Kandi, P.S. Chandauti, In The District Of Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Social Security, Labour Resources Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Magistrate Gaya 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer Sahrghati, Distt-Gaya 6. The Block Development Officer Khijarsarai, Distt-Gaya ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kr. Prabhakar, Adv. ----------- 3. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2009 by which the benefit of A.C.P granted on 30.11.2007 and 5.1.2009 has been amended reducing the pay scale. Consequent directions have also been given for recovery of payments made under the old scale. Learned counsel for the petitioners make a limited submission that the order having adverse civil consequences not only by reducing the pay scale but also when it directs recovery has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice without a show cause notice prior to the same as 2 specifically asserted in Paragraph-13 of the writ application. Counsel for the State sought to persuade the Court to go into the merits of the reasons for the correction but is unable to demonstrate from the two counter affidavits filed that a show cause notice was given to the petitioners and their point of view considered only whereafter the impugned order has been passed. The Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not so much concerned with the merits of the order, but is primarily concerned with the decision making process. Any order adverse to a person affecting his pay scale and directing recovery cannot be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, behind their back, without an opportunity to defend. Such order on the face of it is arbitrary and prejudice is not required to be demonstrated. The Supreme Court in (1994) 6 SCC 154 (Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India) held at Paragraph-3 as follows:- “3. ………The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. 3 He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the (sic employee) concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter……” Only for that reason the impugned order dated 2.7.2009 is set aside but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)