ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents. The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13/02/2013 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief directing recovery of excessive incentive bonus paid to the Petitioner for early completion of contract works by excluding the period of rainy days during the tenure of the contract. 2. The Petitioner was awarded a contract which provided for payment of incentive bonus if the works were completed before expiry of the scheduled date. Having done so, the Petitioner claimed for incentive bonus. On 09/11/2009, the department granted approval confirming competition of works before the scheduled date permitting payment of incentive bonus. It was then paid to the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13/02/2013 directing recovery is to his prejudice and has civil consequences when it directs recovery of money from him. No order to the prejudice of a person can be passed behind his back without a show cause notice and opportunity of defend. 4. Counsel for the Respondents submits that since execution of work was not possible during rainy season, there is no error in directing recovery of incentive bonus after taking into consideration the period of rainy days in the contract. The impugned order cannot be termed arbitrary. 5. In our opinion, the writ petition raises an extremely short question of law for our consideration. The Engineer-in-chief has passed the impugned order without a show cause notice to the Petitioner. That would have been sufficient to strike down the order as it has civil consequences to the prejudice of the Petitioner when it directs recovery from him from payments already made. We are not concerned with the correctness or infirmity of the recovery on merits at this stage. Our concern is limited to the decision making process only. 6. If that were not enough, in the facts of the case, the post decisional hearing offered by the Executive Engineer on 04/03/2013 is but an empty formality. If the Engineer-in-Chief, a superior officer has already ordered recovery, it stands to reason that the Executive Engineer, an officer subordinate to it will not dare to go against the superior by exercise of powers under clause 1.17 of the agreement. Exercise of power by the Executive Engineer before the direction of the Engineer-in-Chief would have been an entirely different matter. Exercise of power by the Executive Engineer before the direction of the Engineer-in-Chief would have been an entirely different matter. The post decisional hearing offered in this case is but an empty formality not meeting the requirements of natural justice. A pre-decisional hearing is a sine qua non for a valid exercise of power barring, of course, cases of mandatory statutory exclusion of such hearing, where affording post-decisional hearing would be sufficient compliance with natural justice requirements. As observed in Wades Administrative Law 5th Edition. "If natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right of appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair trial followed by fair trial." 7. The impugned order dated 13/92/2013 is therefore set-aside. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents afresh in accordance with law simultaneously identifying the delinquent officer/officers and proceeding against them also as directed in the impugned order. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed