Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Respondent Bihar State Road Transport Corporation which is being squeezed by the Government on one side and crushed by over-staffing on the other hand is facing a serious financial crunch. It has only 300 buses to ply on the roads while it has more than 6000 employees to look after them. It appears that one bus has to maintain more than 20 persons and has also to earn something towards the maintenance of the offices and maintenance of the Corporation and its high class officers. 3. It appears that the matter went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7290 of 1994. As the Supreme Court found that the matter was required to be monitored by the Court itself it constituted a committee and issued certain directions to the committee to prepare a package so that the dying Corporation is revived and it starts earning. According to the Respondents, after the directions of the Supreme Court constituting the committee the said committee was headed by the Chief Secretary of the State Government, it submitted the report incorporating a revival package scheme, which was accepted by the State Govt. and implemented and effected by the orders of the Apex Court in toto with effect from 1.4.1998. 4. Paragraph 4.25 of the said report/package relates to the revenue generation. One of the questions submitted before the committee was that because of the competitive operations of authorised/unauthorised private buses on nationalised routes it was not possible to earn good revenue and it was the major reason for poor load factor in the Corporation buses. The Committee observed that the loss due to pilferage needs to be viewed more seriously than covered by such facile argument. The Committee also observed that the norm of Income Per Kilometer (IPKM) prevalent on All India average basis be strictly adopted. The Committee also observed that any set of crew, who failed to generate the adopted norm of IPKM be suitably penalised including proportionate reduction in wage; an alternative set of crew be tried and if this too fails, the route in question be discarded. Some more observations were also made by the Committee. The Committee also observed that any set of crew, who failed to generate the adopted norm of IPKM be suitably penalised including proportionate reduction in wage; an alternative set of crew be tried and if this too fails, the route in question be discarded. Some more observations were also made by the Committee. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents, this package has been accepted in toto by the Supreme Court and in accordance with the liberty given in paragraph 4.25 of the said package the respondents are entitled to recover the losses from the set of the crew which was operating the bus and was not generating the amount. 5. The Respondents issued Order No. 1033 of 2002 on 23.11.2002 inter alia observing that as many as 36 conductors have earned less revenue or IPKM, therefore, each of them would be liable to pay Rs. 500.00 per month to the tune of the losses suffered by not generating the revenue in form of IPKM. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1916/2003 which was disposed on 11.3.2003 with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners, if already not taken, within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The petitioners accordingly submitted the copy of the said order and thereafter on 27.5.2003 vide Office Order No. 394 the Chief of Operations had passed an order. As the order is again adverse to the interest of the petitioners, they have again come to this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners basically submits that as no notice to show cause was ever issued to the petitioners nor it has been observed anywhere that present were cases of pilferage or of theft or of misconduct, a straight deduction could not be made from the salary to the tune of the losses suffered by the Corporation. It has also been submitted by them that there could be natural causes which led to less collection and in any case the observations made in paragraph 4.25 of the package are not to be read in stray sentences but are to be read in juxtaposition to reach to a positive conclusion. It has also been submitted by them that there could be natural causes which led to less collection and in any case the observations made in paragraph 4.25 of the package are not to be read in stray sentences but are to be read in juxtaposition to reach to a positive conclusion. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents submits that as the petitioners had filed their representation and the same has already been disposed of it must be held by this Court that proper opportunity to show cause was extended in favour of the petitioners. It is also contended that undisputedly the Corporation has suffered losses under the hands of a particular set of crew, therefore, under paragraph 4.25 of the package the respondents are entitled to recover the losses. 7. Paragraph 4.25 of the package reads as under :- "4.25. This Committee is unable to endorse the argument that competitive operation of authorised/unauthorised private buses on nationalised routes is the major reason for poor load factor in the Corporation buses. The loss due to pilferage needs to be viewed more seriously than covered by such facile argument. Majority of passengers want to travel by Corporations buses rather than be handled by private operators who often drive dangerously and also put passengers to serious hardship when encountered by checking/enforcement squads. This committee feels that the Corporations main problem is the lack of its credibility which puts off passengers, and poor internal vigilance on revenue. Ticketing system being a technical subject this Committee does not wish to take one view or other on the subject. We would further add than the norm of income per kilometer (IPKM) prevalent on an All India average basis be strictly adopted: Firstly any set of crew who fail to generate the adopted norm of IPKM be suitably penalised including proportionate reduction in wage; an alternative set of crew be tried and if this too fails the route in question be discarded. There can be no way the Corporation can go on running services which do not yield the adopted norm of IPKM. It may be left to the personnel, say at Depot level, to find the given lever of IPKM along with standard norm of vehicle utilisation by selecting the routes and trips themselves. There can be no way the Corporation can go on running services which do not yield the adopted norm of IPKM. It may be left to the personnel, say at Depot level, to find the given lever of IPKM along with standard norm of vehicle utilisation by selecting the routes and trips themselves. If they cannot meet the requirement the number of buses at the Depot be reduced and if necessary the Depot be closed down rather than maintaining services and establishment which yield below the norm. It should be quite clear to the staff that closure of Depot or failure to run all vehicles would ultimately mean further retrenchment by the Corporation." 8. A fair perusal of paragraph 4.25 would certainly speak of the lofty ideas and the positive intentions of the Committee. The idea is not to squeeze money from the crew itself or coerce them to set them in motion to earn the revenue to satisfy the norms of IPKM. The idea in fact is that the loss due to pilferage needs to be viewed more seriously than covered by such facile argument like competitive operation of authorised/unauthorised private buses. The idea further is to remind the Corporation that its main problem is the lack of its credibility which puts off the passengers, and poor internal vigilance on revenue. It is observed in the said paragraph that ticketing system being a technical subject the Committee was not required to take one view or the other on the said subject. The observations/ recommendations of the Committee were that any set of crew who fails to generate the adopted norm of IPKM be suitably penalised including proportionate reduction in wage; and an alternative set of crew be tried and if this too fails the route in question be discarded. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the set of crew who fails to generate the adopted norm of IPKM must be suitably penalised but that would not give an authority to the Corporation to take an ex parte or unilateral decision. The person, who has to suffer the civil consequences and cut of his salary is entitled to know that on what basis the Respondent Corporation finds that there was loss of revenue or there was pilferage. The person, who has to suffer the civil consequences and cut of his salary is entitled to know that on what basis the Respondent Corporation finds that there was loss of revenue or there was pilferage. In a given case there could be natural reasons which may lead to loss of revenue; there may be cases where because of the pilferage or theft the revenue may not be properly earned or the earned revenue may not be properly shown but in any case when the penal consequences would ensue, the person who has to suffer the onslaught of a cut in the salary is certainly entitled to a notice to show cause before part of his bread is snatched away from his hands; before it reaches his mouth. 10. Undisputedly in the present case the respondents have straightaway passed the order contained in Annexure-2 without making any enquiry into the allegations or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners simply decided the representation being unmindful of the fact that the petitioners certainly could bring out a case before them to satisfy that the earning of less revenue was because of the natural causes and not because of the pilferage. 11. The basic requirements of the canons of natural justice have not been observed in their slightest sense, the directions contained in Office Order No. 1033/2003 dated 23.11.2002 relating to the present petitioners deserve to and are accordingly quashed. The Respondents, however, are given liberty to issue notices to the petitioners to show cause and proceed further in accordance with law taking into consideration the true spirit and the lofty idea contained in paragraph 4.25 of the package approved by the Supreme Court. 12. The writ petition to the extent indicated above is allowed. If any deduction has already been made, it shall be returned back to the petitioners in monthly instalments of Rs. 500.00.