JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Order No. 27/ SWSM dated 06.06.2017 issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief wherein and whereby petitioner has been arbitrarily ordered to pay Rs. 594745/- (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Five only) personally to the Contractor - M/s. Sayeed Akhtar against his pending dues of Rs. 5,96,183/-. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. 1181, Dated 11.09.2017 and 1397, dated 14.09.2017 by which representation of the petitioner for withdrawal of payment order has been rejected and asked to pay the contractor without any delay holding him guilty. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. When petitioner was posted as an Executive Engineer at Giridih, in the year 2012 - 13 instructions were issued by the Engineer-in-Chief with regard to work program relating to relocation of Tube Well and its tender process vide letter issued under Memo no. 1042, dated 07.09.2012 and 1124 dated 21.09.2012 respectively. Accordingly, on 10.10.2012, tender was floated to carry over the ensuing relocation of Tube Well under NRDWP Scheme 2012 - 13 prior to sanction of the Scheme in light of target for installation of Tube Well which was earmarked and fixed under the Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Dhanbad by the Superintending Engineer. The Scheme of relocation of Tube Well under NRDWP (2012 - 13) was sanctioned for the whole State of Jharkhand for Rs. 10706.61627 Lac. out of which Rs. 358.19605 Lac was earmarked for Giridih Division vide sanction order no. 140, dated 01.12.2012. After issuance of Sanction Order of the Scheme, work orders were issued in favour of different contractors inclusive of M/s. Sayeed Akhtar also at a rate above to the extent of 4.5% than the scheduled rate vide work order no. 2304, dated 22.12.2012 with a condition to complete the work within sanctioned financial limits and no option or liberty was given to the petitioner to alter the target. With regard to sanction order as contained in order no. 140, dated 01.12.2012, a Corrigendum being Sanction No. 158, dated 17.01.2017 was issued whereby expenditure under central share was exclusively earmarked for sustainability of source without altering the total sanctioned amount. 4. With regard to sanction order as contained in order no. 140, dated 01.12.2012, a Corrigendum being Sanction No. 158, dated 17.01.2017 was issued whereby expenditure under central share was exclusively earmarked for sustainability of source without altering the total sanctioned amount. 4. It is further averred that for the year 2013 - 14, due to depletion of water level, rate was revised due to which further consequential amendment was made in the original sanction order and the sanction amount was enhanced from Rs. 358.19605 Lac. to the extent of Rs. 425.93315 Lac. for Giridih Division vide revised sanction order no. 06, dated 17.05.2013. The work allocated to different contractor inclusive of M/s. Sayeed Akhtar was carried over and accordingly payment was released to them in which M/s. Sayeed Akhtar was also facilitated with payment of Rs. 5,94,745/- only and balance amount of Rs. 5,96,183 Lac. was left unpaid as total allocation was exhausted till 09.07.2013. Thereafter, further bill for unpaid balance of Rs. 5,96,183/- was prepared and passed on 13.12.2013 for payment and thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Dhanbad Division which the petitioner complied by handing over the change to his successor on 27.12.2013. 5. As the amount was not paid due to financial crunch, the contractor moved before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2016 and this Court, vide order dated 03.08.2016, directed as under: Be that as it may, upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, this court is not inclined to enter into the determination of questions of claim arising out of contractual dues in the writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the respondent no. 3/ competent authority through proper channel of respondent no. 6 with a fresh representation duly supported with annexure in respect of aforesaid claim. Needless to say, the competent authority/ respondent no. 3, on receipt thereof would consider the matter in accordance with law upon due scrutiny of relevant material facts and documents to come to a conclusion relating to admissibility of dues claimed by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the dues are found to be admitted, the amount in question be released thereafter in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time. If the dues are found to be admitted, the amount in question be released thereafter in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable time. In compliance of the order of this Court, the Engineer-in-Chief of the Department passed an order holding the petitioner to be liable for making the payment of rest of the amount as the petitioner was himself responsible for working more than the sanctioned amount and had crossed the sanctioned financial limits as per Clause-VIII of the condition of the sanction order. Petitioner was shocked and surprised when after four years of his transfer from Giridih, he was served with an order being no. 27, dated 06.06.2017 wherein he was instructed to pay the contractor individually and personally to the extent of Rs. 5,94,745/- against the unpaid balance of Rs. 5,96,183/- for which neither any allegations were ever communicated to him nor any enquiry was conducted. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed representation on 15.06.2017 but the same has been rejected mechanically and direction has been made to pay the unpaid dues of M/s. Sayeed Akhtar and as such petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 6. Mr. Baidh Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel argues that the work order is itself contradictory and conflicting as being all other things constant. If the work has to be completed it would positively cause enhancement of cost proportionately which is admissible in light of provisions mentioned in different tender rule contained in Circular No. 462, dated 30.03.1982 and 948, dated 16.07.1986 (Clause 3.5 and 7.4) and related Rule 115 of the Financial Rule read with Rule 305 of the Treasury Code. Learned counsel further submits that while revision of sanction order, no cognizance of work order containing approval of higher rate was taken which ought to cause financial deficit to meet the expenditure for completion of Scheme. Learned counsel submits that before issuance of order being no. 27, dated 06.06.2017 wherein petitioner had been instructed to pay the contractor individually and personally to the extent of Rs. 5,94,745/- against the unpaid balance of Rs. 5,96,183/-, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any showcause relating to any charge had been served to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that before issuance of order being no. 27, dated 06.06.2017 wherein petitioner had been instructed to pay the contractor individually and personally to the extent of Rs. 5,94,745/- against the unpaid balance of Rs. 5,96,183/-, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any showcause relating to any charge had been served to the petitioner. The petitioner has been unilaterally and arbitrarily held responsible for creation of liability in gross violation of the principles of natural justice amounting to trespass the provisions as contained in Rules 18 and 19 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. Learned counsel further submits that the order and direction passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2016 has been misinterpreted by the respondents. The observation of this Court was to pay the admitted dues. In the Contempt Application filed by the said contractor i.e. Contempt Case (C) No. 232 of 2017, the Court was not inclined to proceed rather it was observed as under: Liability has been saddled in personal capacity against certain officials. The concerned officials are not parties in this petition or before this Court. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to drop the proceeding, however, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his claim in respect of the said amount in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been issued in haste and against all the statutory rules and constitutional provisions as contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order suffers from vices of illegality and not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to learned SC-II vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit and submits that in Clause-8 of sanction order no. 6(S) dated 17.05.2013, it has clearly been mentioned that the related Executive Engineer will confirm that the work must be within the sanctioned amount. In any condition the work would not be executed by the Executive Engineer more than the sanction amount. The financial liability generated due to work more than the sanctioned amount will be responsibilities of related Executive Engineer. In any condition the work would not be executed by the Executive Engineer more than the sanction amount. The financial liability generated due to work more than the sanctioned amount will be responsibilities of related Executive Engineer. The petitioner has violated the direction of Clause-8 which is the matter of financial indiscipline and negligence of duty and as such, the liability must be borne by him. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition merits dismissal. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no orders can be passed without affording any opportunity or without issuance of any show-cause notice. Any order visiting with civil consequences can be passed only after affording proper opportunity to the concerned employee. In the instant case nowhere it has been brought on record that before passing the impugned order holding the petitioner liable for the amount and any opportunity was given to him to explain his position as to under what circumstances the sanction amount was exceeded. From paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit the respondents themselves have admitted that the agreement amount with the contractor exceeded the sanctioned amount and the matter was brought before the Headquarter but the same was not considered and giving wrong interpretation to the Court s Order, petitioner was held liable. The impugned order suffers from vices and illegality and is fit to be quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are directed to reconsider case of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of personal hearing. 9. In the circumstances, respondents are directed for framing of fresh charges against the petitioner and after issuance of show-cause notice and after regular departmental proceeding, the order be passed in accordance with law keeping into account para-8 of the counter affidavit. Petitioner is also at liberty to bring any other documents to the knowledge of the respondents to prove that he was not liable to make payment as alleged. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six months. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.