JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the office order as contained in Memo No. 2392 dated 04.6.2009; whereby in pursuance to the audit observation dated 27.1.2009 regarding grant of higher pay scale i.e. 5000-8000, has been reduced to 4000-6000 (Annexure-14). The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 26.11.2010; whereby the pay of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs.4500 in the revised pay scale. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court towards Annexure13, which is the audit observation with respect to four persons, namely Ramesh Lal Gupta, Mr. Dinanath Pandey, Clement Sanjay Toppo and Computer Sahayak. The said audit objection/ observation was on the ground that in none of the resolutions there is reference of pay scales of Laboratory Technician, however, there is only reference of Lab Assistant, who are in the pay scale of 4000-6000 and 3200-4900 and due to all these reasons the auditor asked for clarification from the office of the Accountant General, Bihar. He further submits that Annexure-13 was an observation of the auditor and thereafter without any show cause; just on the basis of auditor’s report, the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced to 4000 – 6000 in spite of the fact that the name of this petitioner was not found in the auditor’s report. He further submits that pursuant to the office order dated 04.06.2009 pay of the petitioner has been fixed in the lower scale. He further draws attention to different office orders whereby his pay was revised and further submits that without any show cause and only on the basis of auditor’s report, the action of the respondent University in reducing the pay scale is non est in the eye of law and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel submits that the argument of the petitioner that his name was not in the audit objection is non est because Shri Dinanath Pandey, Lab Technician and this petitioner were working on the same post and their scale being similar; the pay scale of the petitioner has been revised accordingly. 4. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel submits that the argument of the petitioner that his name was not in the audit objection is non est because Shri Dinanath Pandey, Lab Technician and this petitioner were working on the same post and their scale being similar; the pay scale of the petitioner has been revised accordingly. He further referred to the supplementary counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the scale of pay of the petitioner was revised in the scale of 5000-8000 as first up-gradation. He further referred to office order dated 26.8.2006, wherein it is mentioned that the admissible pay scale of the petitioner was enhanced from 5500-9000 as per second up-gradation. He relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Celorina Dhan & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2015) 2 JCR 747 which was filed for the benefit of up-gradation under A.C.P. scheme. However, Mr. Allam could not dispute the fact that before passing of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 14, no specific show cause was issued to the petitioner. He further referred to Paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit which is quoted herein below:- “6. That it is stated that vide Annexure-11, dated 26.02.2006, the scale of pay of the petitioner was revised in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 but in the said letter, whereby the benefits of ACP was allowed, incorporates that “as recommended by the Committee, the promotion to these employees is granted in anticipation of approval of the State Government to the pay scale of their initial post which has been left to be made in the Government Resolution No. 2810, dated 23.09.2004 and, therefore, any rectification or recovery of excess payment shall be done in accordance with final approval of the government to their pay scale. The other conditions of ACP Scheme, as explained in the aforesaid State Government Resolution No. 5207, dated 14.08.2002 along with certain changes/additions/amendment, if made any by the State Government from time to time, shall however be observed.” 7. That it is stated that the petitioner was not only allowed revision of benefits rather on the basis of granting ACP as per Resolution of the Government dated 14.08.2002, the said pay scale was given, which is contained in Annexure-11. 8. That it is stated that the petitioner was not only allowed revision of benefits rather on the basis of granting ACP as per Resolution of the Government dated 14.08.2002, the said pay scale was given, which is contained in Annexure-11. 8. That it is stated that during the course of Audit, the Auditor of the Government dated 27.01.2009, detected that the scale of the petitioner has illegally been fixed against the memorandum of Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, as contained in memo no. 10770, dated 30.12.1981 and letter of the Government No. 6021, dated 18.12.1989 and also letter of the Government No. 660, dated 08.02.1999.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits; at the outset I would clarify that it is not a case of enhancement under A.C.P., rather it is a case where an order has been passed pursuant to an auditor’s report. As such, case of Celorina Dhan & Ors. referred by learned counsel for the University is not applicable in the instant case. 6. From record it appears that the petitioner was appointed on 17.3.1986 under I.C.A.R Project on the post of Lab Technician. On 08.4.2000, the post for Lab Technician was advertised in the scale of Rs.1,400-2,600. It further transpires from record that there was an audit in the Respondent’s University and the auditor has made certain observations with regard to pay scale of four employees namely Ramesh Lal Gupta, Dinanath Pandey, Clement Sanjay Toppo and Computer Assistant. The auditor’s observation with respect to Mr. Dinanath Pandey was on the ground that in none of the resolutions there is reference of pay scales of Laboratory Technician, rather; there is only reference of pay scales of Lab Assistant, which is in the pay scale of 4000-6000 and 3200-4900 and due to all these reasons the auditor asked for clarification from the office of the Accountant General, Bihar. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the auditor has mainly mentioned the factual position of resolutions and its rules that there was no mention of the post like Lab Technician and there is only reference of Laboratory Assistant and only for this reason he asked for clarification with respect to the post of Lab Technician because the same was not mentioned in the resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 or 6021 dated 18.12.1989 and/or 660 dated 08.2.1999. 7. Thus, the report of the Auditor was not an objection regarding payment; rather it was an observation. However, respondent University pursuant to the aforesaid Audit report reduced the pay scale of the petitioner along with one Dinanath Pandey whose name also finds place in the report. At this stage it is clarified that though the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the auditor’s report, however, since from the statement made in the impugned order it appears that the case of the petitioner and the said Dinanath Pandey was on the similar footing, as such the contention of the petitioner that since his name does not appear in the said audit report as such no action should have been taken against this petitioner; is not acceptable to this Court. 8. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that after any audit objection; no adverse order can be passed unless prior notice is issued to the employee and giving him a proper opportunity to put forth his case. However, in the instant case the impugned order only speaks about the audit objection and pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced from 5000-8000, to 4000-6000; without any show cause notice and without giving him proper opportunity to put forth his case. Thus, the impugned order is against the settled principles and has no legs to stand in the eye of law. In the case of V. Saminathan Versus The Director of Town Panchayat & Country Planning & Another reported in (2009) 0 Supreme (Mad) 1359; the Madras High Court in a similar case has held in Para-6 as under: “6. Thus, the impugned order is against the settled principles and has no legs to stand in the eye of law. In the case of V. Saminathan Versus The Director of Town Panchayat & Country Planning & Another reported in (2009) 0 Supreme (Mad) 1359; the Madras High Court in a similar case has held in Para-6 as under: “6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 27.2003, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it has been issued without prior notice having been issued to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. However, it is seen that the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds in the existing post of Malaria Mazdoor (Sanitary Worker), which is said to be a substantive post. Similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner are being paid the time scale of pay. While so, the second respondent has not shown sufficient reasons to re-fix the salary of the petitioner on a consolidated pay of Rs.900/-per month, instead of time scale of pay which was being paid to him.” 9. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid proposition of law, this court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order; which has been passed without any show cause notice has no legs to stand and deserves to be quashed. 10. Consequently, the order as contained in Memo No. 2392 dated 04.6.2009 (Annexure-14) and the subsequent order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-15), are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. It goes without saying that since the matter is very old; as such the proceeding, if any, shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; failing which the entire consequential benefits shall be extended to this petitioner.