JUDGMENT 1. This Original Petition is field under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing Ext. P2 letter issued by the first respondent and for a declaration that no stoppage of pay or recovery from Pay can be effected on the basis of Ext.P2 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. This Original Petition was field in 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner had retired from service on 31.3.2010. 4. The Petitioner was originally appointed as a U.P.S.A. on 31.7.1978 at the Girls High School, Punalur, an aided school. While so, she was Promoted as H.S.A. (Mathematics) against a leave vacancy. Subsequently, she was reverted as U.P.S.A. due to division fall. She was again promoted as H.S.A.(Mathematics) in a regular vacancy on 3.8.1983. That appointment was approved. The pay has been revised with effect from 1.7.1983 and, accordingly her pay was fixed in the revised scale of pay. 5. While so, there was some audit objection in 1992 in respect of fixation of her pay on her promotion as H.S.A. on 3.8.1983. The Headmistress of the school submitted an explanation in respect of that objection to the second respondent, the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam. Thereafter, the second respondent has dropped that objection by his order dated 5.2.1993. 6. The first respondent has issued Ext.P2 letter dated 2.12.2002 to the Headmistress of the school saying that the Accountant General audited the pay fixed based on the 1988 pay revision in respect of the petitioner and found that her pay was fixed irregularly. it is also noted in Ext.P2 that the objections raised by the Accountant General were communicated to the school but, the excess amount received by the petitioner by way of irregular fixation of pay was not remitted back and directed to remit the excess payment made, failing which, the salary of the petitioner as well as the Headmistress of the school would be stopped from the month of December, 2002. 7. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 letter on different grounds. It is her case that the authorities of the school and her self were not at all aware of the audit objection referred to in Ext.P2 in respect of 1988 pay revision. 7. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 letter on different grounds. It is her case that the authorities of the school and her self were not at all aware of the audit objection referred to in Ext.P2 in respect of 1988 pay revision. Ext.P2 does not say what actually is the objection or the nature of the objection or the amount involved. Ext.P2 has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither a notice has been issued to the petitioner nor an opportunity of being heard has been afforded to her before issuing Ext.P2. The respondents have no authority to reopen the pay fixed based on 1988 pay revision at this distance of time. Ext.P2 is vague and bereft of details. Since the proposal to stop the salary of the petitioner as well as the Headmistress of the school is a drastic one, such adcision should not have been arrived at without any notice to the affected parties or without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, Ext.P2 is unsustainable and hence, liable to be quashed. 8.The averments made and the grounds raised in this Original Petition stand not controverted as the respondents have not field any counter affidavit. This court passed the following interim order on C.M.P No.66684 of 2002 on 17.1.2003: The recovery of excess amount is stayed. But the salary of the petitioner need be paid only as refixed. This is, without prejudice to her contentions. This court also passed an order on I.A.No.8603 of 2003 on 22.7.2003 directing that the increments which had become due to the petitioner should be released to her not with standing the pendency of the Original petition. 9. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the authorities of the school and the petitioner are not at all aware of the audit objection referred to in Ext.P2 in respect of the pay fixed in 1988. Ext.P2 does not say what actually is the objection or the nature of the objection or the amount involved. The contentions raised by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 stand not disputed by the respondents as they have not contested the matter by filling counter affidavits. Ext.P2 directs recovery from pay as well as stoppage of pay. Therefore, Ext.P2 has civil consequences seriously affecting the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 stand not disputed by the respondents as they have not contested the matter by filling counter affidavits. Ext.P2 directs recovery from pay as well as stoppage of pay. Therefore, Ext.P2 has civil consequences seriously affecting the petitioner. Hence, the necessity of following the principles of natural justice, before issuing Ext.P2, cannot be over emphasized, A pre-decisional notice, explaining the reasons and calling for the explanation, to the affected party, viz; the petitioner, is a requirement before issuing a letter like Ext.P2. Since no such notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing Ext.P2 there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, on that ground alone, Ext.P2 is liable to be quashed. If the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of excess amount, if any, paid to her, it can be done only after giving her a proper notice explaining the reasons compelling such a recovery and calling for her objections against the same. Unless there are justifiable reasons, no proceeding can be issued against the petitioner for effecting recovery of money from her. In the result, Ext.P2 is quashed. The respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner for effecting recovery of excess amount, if any, paid to her as a result of fixation of her pay based on 1988 pay revision unless there are justifiable reasons compelling such recovery. If the authorities decide to proceed against the petitioner for effecting recovery of excess amount, if any, paid that can be done only after giving her proper notice explaining the reasons compelling such a recovery and calling for objections against the same and considering the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing any order for recovering any amount from the petitioner. This Original Petition is disposed of as above.