JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Accountant General. 2. The respondents by an order dated 4.7.2008 without issuance of show cause reduced the pay scale of the petitioner with regard to the period 1.4.1981 to 1.1.1996 affecting the time bound promotions granted to him and also oraered recovery. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11183 of 2008 seeking limited direction that he proposes to file a representation against the same. He did so on 14.9.2008 in which he took the objection in the very opening line that the order was ex parte in nature. 3. Thereafter has followed the impugned order dated 21.8.2009 holding by a process of reasoning that the order dated 4.7.2008 required no interference. 4. From the materials on record it transpires that the respondents have treated the representation of the petitioner as equivalent to the cause shown by the petitioner. It has already been noticed above that the order dated 4.7.2008 was ex parte. A bare perusal of the same also makes it clear that it was non-speaking in nature and does not disclose the ground except for making reference to the certain letters of the State Government. 5. An order for reduction of pay scale has civil consequences. The law mandates a show cause notice to the delinquent and only thereafter an order having civil consequences can be passed. The show cause notice is required to disclose the grounds on which the order is proposed to be passed to enable the delinquent to know the case he has to meet and then file his reply which is to be considered in accordance with law. In such a situation, if a representation is filed against a non-speaking order, quite obviously the petitioner is submitting what he considers relevant from his point of view. The petitioner does not have the benefit of understanding and knowing what is passing in the minds of the authorities on which they propose to visit him with civil consequences. The order dated 21.8.2009 makes it apparent that there is no discussion that the grounds raised in his representation were the irrelevant grounds and that no other grounds have been considered and only on the grounds urged by him, there was no merit explained in the impugned order. 6. The order dated 21.8.2009 makes it apparent that there is no discussion that the grounds raised in his representation were the irrelevant grounds and that no other grounds have been considered and only on the grounds urged by him, there was no merit explained in the impugned order. 6. A show cause notice, with reasons, an obligation of the respondents cannot be given a short shrift on the argument that since he filed a representation he has not been prejudiced. 7. The impugned order dated 21.8.2009 virtually puts the cart before the horse. This Court is concerned with the decision making process which has to be fair, reasonable and transparent. If the respondent authorities pass orders contrary to law notwithstanding the fact that they have a large number of State legal advisers and without taking whose assistance they insist on passing orders themselves contrary to law, there is not much the Court can do but to set aside such orders. This Court accordingly sets aside the order dated 21.8.2009. 8. The petitioner is stated to have retired on 31st of December, 2008. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in that context rightly placed reliance on an order of this Court in a similar matter in C.W.J.C. No. 3601 of 2007. 10. The writ application stands disposed.