Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner joined as a Part Time Craft Teacher in March 1973 in Vellakoil Panchayat Union School. Later, she was appointed as a Full Time Craft Teacher and she joined in the said post on 27.08.1977. As Full Time Craft Teacher, she was granted Higher Grade Teachers scale, since her educational qualification was 8th standard. When she passed S.S.L.C. on 31.03.1987, she was granted Selection Grade Teachers scale with effect from 01.04.1987. As per the proceedings of the second respondent Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vellakoil, she was granted Selection Grade on 14.09.1987 and Special Grade on 14.09.1997. While so, the second respondent passed an order dated 30.07.2003 directing the petitioner to remit the excess amount that was paid to her, as noted by the audit party. In the said order dated 30.07.2003, a reference was made to the audit report dated 31.10.2001. It is also stated that she was excessively paid a sum of Rs.1,22,623/-. 3. Challenging the said order dated 30.07.2003 of the second respondent, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3387 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, while ordering notice of motion on 14.10.2003, has granted interim stay till 11.11.2003. 4. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the audit party objected for granting Selection Grade on 14.09.1987 and Special Grade on 14.09.1997 by taking into account the services of Higher Grade Teacher as well as Secondary Grade Teacher. 5. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.13655 of 2007. 6. Heard both sides. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed without any notice and without even hearing the petitioner. While the second respondent relied on the audit report dated 31.10.2001 for ordering recovery, the same was not furnished to the petitioner. It is well settled that no adverse order resulting in civil consequences could be passed without hearing the aggrieved person. 8. While the second respondent relied on the audit report dated 31.10.2001 for ordering recovery, the same was not furnished to the petitioner. It is well settled that no adverse order resulting in civil consequences could be passed without hearing the aggrieved person. 8. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while Selection Grade was granted in the year 1987, the second respondent could not interfere with the same after 16 years, particularly when the grant of Selection Grade was not due to any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. It is also submitted that Special Grade was granted in the year 1997 by the Department itself and the same was also not based on any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The services rendered by the petitioner as Higher Grade Teacher and Secondary Grade Teacher were taken into account by the Department for granting Selection and Special Grades. More importantly, the proceedings of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vellakoil granting Selection Grade on 14.09.1987 is not cancelled. Without cancelling the order granting Selection Grade and Special Grade, the second respondent could not proceed based on the audit report, particularly without even furnishing the same to the petitioner. It is well settled that even assuming that any excess payment is made by the Department not due to any misrepresentation on the part of the Government employee, the Department could not make recovery thereafter. 9. The matter is also covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D.PALAVESAMUTHU VS.TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [ 2006 (1) MLJ 143 ]. The relevant passage found in para 6 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "6..........We are of the view that the course and method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be appreciated in the case of the petitioner. Even if it is accepted for the argument sake that salary of the petitioner is fixed in a wrong scale of pay, it is the fault committed by the Department and their Officers, for which the petitioner should not be penalised after a lapse of number of years that too after retirement of the petitioner". 10. In the light of the same, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.