Order Heard both the parties and both are ready to dispose of the case at the Admission Stage. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for seeking followings relief. (i) An appropriate directions for setting aside the orders crated 13/14 March, 2007 whereby unilaterally without conducting any enquiry, the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced as also the order dated 25/26.3.2008 whereby the appeal/representation made by the petitioner against the reduction of the pay has been tuned down. Or (ii) For the issuance of any other appropriate order for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. It is admitted case by the party that the petitioner joined the services with Respondent No.1 as Semi Clerk on 18.6.1974. The petitioner was granted promotion as an Office Superintendent from the post of Senior Clerk which' he was holding on 31.3.2003 as alleged in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the petitioner pursuant to the said order completed his probation period as Office Superintendent and thereafter he came to know on 13/14 March, 2007, on the basis of some recommendations made by the committee constituted by respondent No.4, two increments of the petitioner were reduced. The increments granted were nullified and the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed and with the aforesaid order the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner in lieu of the increments was ordered to be recovered from him. The petitioner after receiving the said order challenged it in appeal/representation before the Respondent No.2, Director (personnel), C.C.L., Darbhanga House, Ranchi on dated 25/26.3.2008 (Annexure-10). The said representation/appeal was rejected; feeling aggrieved by the said orders, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit and averred that petitioner's basic prior to granting Service linked up-gradation was Rs. 7,937/- in the Grade-B. However, on account of aforesaid up-gradation, the petitioner's basic pay was arrived at Rs. 7,982/- in T&S Grade-A with effect from 1.1.2003 under the National Coal Wage Agreement VI Pay Scale. The petitioner did not join immediately, so he was not entitled to get the increments as has been paid to him. Thus the two increments which have already been released in favour of the petitioner were rightly withheld and the mistake was corrected, when it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to the same. 5. The petitioner did not join immediately, so he was not entitled to get the increments as has been paid to him. Thus the two increments which have already been released in favour of the petitioner were rightly withheld and the mistake was corrected, when it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was never served any notice and he had not been given any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was no need to give any notice as only a clerical mistake has to be rectified. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the record. It clearly revealed that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on 31.3.2003 and the said order was issued on 13/14th March, 2007 after fixation of his pay and he was given two increments. Thereupon, till 2007, after the considerable period of three and half years, the petitioner without assigning any reason or without offered any opportunity to him, his two increments were reduced and his pay was re-fixed and he was directed to deposit the amount which he has already been received in lieu of the increments given to him by the Department. 8. Before passing any order, the competent authority should have given a fair opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter the order should have been passed. Thus, the principle of Audi Alteram Partem has not been adhered in this case and the order is liable to quash on this score alone. In view of the above, the order of 13/14.3.2007 (Annexure-2) of the writ petition is liable to be quashed and this petition is liable to be allowed. 9. However, it is clarified that the respondents could proceed against the petitioner in this matter after affording him a fair opportunity by way of giving the notice and the copies of the report of the committee and further seeking his explanation and after hearing him, the authority can pass a speaking order in this regard. 10. The order dated 13/14.3.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and the appellate order dated 25/26.3.2008 is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed with above liberty to the respondents. 11. No order as to cost.