Judgment :- Challenging the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.05532/172/F.1/F.12-2009-12, this writ petition is filed. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, as under: (i) The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Assessor by direct recruitment on merits and he joined service on 05.07.1985 with B.Sc. (Maths) qualification. He had appeared for internal selection for appointment to the post of Auditor and he joined service in the said post in 1998. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Audit Officer/Audit party and he joined service on 19.05.2008 as he has got B.Com. degree qualification from Annamalai University by way of Distance Education mode after undergoing B.Com degree course for one year. The Distance Education mode of Annamalai University had announced that a candidate with one degree qualification could get degree of B.Com. by undergoing B.Com course for only one year. According to the petitioner, he joined the above course with the permission of the department and successfully completed the same on 29.12.2005. The above degree has been entered in his Service Register also and on the basis of the said degree, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant Audit Officer/Audit party with incentive from 30.12.2005. (ii) While so, the 2nd respondent passed an order cancelling the grant of incentive in favour of the petitioner referring to certain orders of the Board, the copies of which are not given to him. As per the order, the Board has decided to cancel the incentive given to the candidates of one year B.Com. Degree course and hence, it is cancelled. It is further stated in the said order that the payment made to the petitioner already towards incentive increment for the period from 27.08.2008 to 31.01.2009 will be recovered and the same will be intimated to the petitioner later. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Heard Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mrs.Sneha, learned Government Advocate for the 2nd respondent. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Heard Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mrs.Sneha, learned Government Advocate for the 2nd respondent. 4. The foremost and only question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is without notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would contend that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the Boards Memorandum dated 27.08.2008 and 10.02.2009, wherein, instructions have been issued to discontinue the payment of advance incentive increments to the employees who have already been sanctioned for having passed one year B.Com. degree course under Distance Education mode (conducted by the Annamalai University). Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed discontinuing the payment of advance incentive increment already sanctioned to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the said order. 6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the service of the Board with B.Sc. (Maths) qualification and thereafter, he qualified in B.Com. Degree course for one year. The said degree has also been entered into the Service Register of the petitioner and thereafter incentive increment has been granted to him. However, the 2nd respondent has taken a decision that a person who had passed one year B.Com. degree course is not eligible to be given an incentive increment and accordingly, an order has been passed. 8. It is seen that the impugned order based on the Boards Memorandum dated 27.08.2008 and 10.02.2009 was neither communicated nor served on the petitioner and it appears that the petitioner was not even given an opportunity of hearing. In that view of the matter, as the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is without notice to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, the same cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, as the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is without notice to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, the same cannot be sustained. The cardinal principle is that when an order is passed without notice to the petitioner and without an opportunity of hearing to him, then it is against the principles of natural justice and there is legal infirmity in it. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to proceed further by issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to him, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.