Judgment B.P.Sinha, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made by petitioner, Navin Prakash Narain, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of the respondent No. 1, the Bihar State Export Corporation Ltd., as contained in item No, 37/17 of the proceedings of the 37th meeting of the Board of Directors of Bihar State Export Corporation held on 1st October, 1988, as contained in Annexure-15, whereby it is alleged that there was reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner and he was also reduced in rank by designating him as an Assistant Manager. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to give the salary to the petitioner in the scale in which he was absorbed. Vide Annexure-9 as Marketing Branch Manager, with all consequential benefits including time bound promotions etc. 2. It may be slated here that the petitioner was working as a Technical Officer in Export Inspection Counsel, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India on his posting at Calcutta. In July, 1983, the Industries Department of Government of Bihar in consultation with the Bureau of Public Enterprises decided to fill up the post of Senior Export Executive I by calling the petitioner on deputation vide order dated 2-7-83 (Annexure-1). The petitioner, accordingly, joined the post of Senior Export Executive I on deputation in the Corporation on 25-7-83. Terms and conditions of his deputation in the Corporation was communicated to him vide letter dated 22-8-83 (Annexure-2). His period of deputation was for two years from 23-7-83 and the scale was fixed at Rs. 1350.00 to Rs. 2000.00 plus other allowances. It is stated that this was approved by the Export Inspection Council on 8th of November, 1983 (Arnexure-3). The Board appears to have agreed and approved a proposal for bis absorption in the Corporation in its 31st meeting of the Board of Directors and order of his absorption as Senior Export Executive I with affect from 30-11-84 appears to have teen issued vide Annexure-9. It is claimed that on 10-11-1987, the Corporation vide its order contained in Memo No. 2560 communicated to the petitioner regarding fixation of his pay scale on his permanent absorption fixing Rs. 1925/- as his basic pay with effect from 1-12-84, vide Annexure-12. It is claimed that on 10-11-1987, the Corporation vide its order contained in Memo No. 2560 communicated to the petitioner regarding fixation of his pay scale on his permanent absorption fixing Rs. 1925/- as his basic pay with effect from 1-12-84, vide Annexure-12. It is further claimed that the post of Senior Export Executive I was designated as Marketing Manager in the same pay scale. The Board of Directors in their 37th meeting held on 1st of October, 1988 took a decision that the scale of petitioners pay would be Rs. 1000.00 to Rs. 1820.00 and he will be known as Assistant Manager, vide Annexure-15. 3. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that before passing this resolution the Board did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. His submission is that the petitioner had been designated as Marketing Manager and his pay had been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350--2000.00 at Rs. 1925/- and these benefits were sought to be withdrawn by the impugned resolution, as contained in Annexure-15. 4. A detailed counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Respondent Corporation. Mr. Javed Anwar, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation, has submitted that the Board was fully justified in passing the impugned resolution in as much as the earlier resolution of the Board was procured by suppressing facts. His further submission is that the petitioner does not possess requisite experience for the post of Marketing Manager and a fraud was played upon the Board and the earlier resolution seems to have been passed under certain misapprehension. He tried to place before us several materials in support of his contention. His submission is that it was beyond the power of the Government to fix pay scale and there was no sanction of the Bureau of the Public Enterprises before this resolution. According to him on 30th September, 1988 a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent. He also drew our attention to the undertakings, as contained in Annexure-11 to the counter affidavit, which will show that the petitioner undertook to refund any excess amount drawn by him, Mr. Anwar also brought to our notice Annexure-10. According to him on 30th September, 1988 a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent. He also drew our attention to the undertakings, as contained in Annexure-11 to the counter affidavit, which will show that the petitioner undertook to refund any excess amount drawn by him, Mr. Anwar also brought to our notice Annexure-10. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director wrote a letter dated 25th May, 1988 to the Chairman, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, giving all the facts which led to the passing of the resolution by the Board contained in Annexure-15. 5. We heard the learned Counsels for both the parties at some length. We do not propose to go into the merits of this case at this stage. We find some substance in the arguments of Sri Basudeo Prasad that before passing the impugned resolution, as contained in Annexure 15, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to show cause. After all the Board had passed certain resolution earlier and the petitioner had started drawing salary of Rs 1925/-. When this was sought to be withdrawn the rules of Natural Justice required the petitioner should have been given at least an opportunity to place his case. In view of the matter, we feel that the matter should go back to the Respondent Corporation for a fresh decision Impugned resolution of the Board, as contained in Annexure-15, is accordingly, quashed and we give the following direction to the Respondent Corporation in this case. The petitioner should be given a notice within 2 weeks from today, asking him to show cause as to why the benefits if any, given to him consequent upon the earlier Boards resolution, as contained in Annexure-8, be not withdrawn. Petitioner shall file his show cause within 2 weeks from the receipt of the said notice. The Corporation (Respondent) shall consider the show cause of the petitioner and decide the case within one month thereafter, by a reasoned order. 6. We wish to make it clear that this will not be in the nature of any departmental proceeding. It will only be a show cause notice giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The learned Counsels have also taken notice of this fact. 6. We wish to make it clear that this will not be in the nature of any departmental proceeding. It will only be a show cause notice giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The learned Counsels have also taken notice of this fact. If the petitioner does not file his show cause within 2 weeks from the receipt of the notice by him the Respondent Corporation shall be entitled to proceed ex-parte and decide the case and pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. We hope that the petitioner will receive the show cause notice from the office of the Corporation within the appointed time. It is further agreed that the copy of the show cause shall also be served upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Similarly a copy of the show cause should be served upon Mr. Javed, learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation by the petitioner or his counsel within the time fixed. 8. During this period of 2 months the petitioner shall continue to get salary which he was getting on 30th of September, 1988. No recovery shall be made from the petitioner during this period. All these payments shall be subject to the final decision which the Board shall ultimately take No arrear shall be paid to the petitioner during this period. 9. This application is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.