JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the following prayer has been made:- (i) For quashing of the general order passed by the District Superintendent of Education cum Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Pakur, whereby and whereunder, he has been instructed on the basis of the decision taken by the District Education Establishment Committee, by which, the pay scale of the husband of the writ petitioner has been re-fixed with a decision to recover the excess amount already paid. 2. The fact leading to filing of this writ petition is, as per the pleading, made that the District Education Establishment Committee has taken a decision on the basis of some irregularity in fixation of the pay scale. 3. The decision was taken to rectify the same and recover the excess amount already by complying the principle of natural justice, thereafter, in consequence of the aforesaid general decision, the concerned D.S.E., Pakur has come out with the list containing the names of 277 teachers, which includes the petitioner also. 4. The pay scale was re-fixed that led the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. The writ petitioner annexed several orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, appended as Anexure-7 to the paper book (page-39) and Annexure-10, by which, while disposing of the writ petition, liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to approach to the authority for consideration of the case. 6. It has been submitted that the cases were considered and the positive decision was taken by recalling the order of re-fixation as also the recovery. The reliance has also been placed in an order passed in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022 (Shankar Prasad Mandal & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) dated 03.10.2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, the general order as contained in memo no.741 dated 09.06.2006 and consequential order dated 18.08.2008 contained in memo no.1143 has been challenged. 7. The reliance has also been placed in an order passed in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022 (Shankar Prasad Mandal & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) dated 03.10.2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, the general order as contained in memo no.741 dated 09.06.2006 and consequential order dated 18.08.2008 contained in memo no.1143 has been challenged. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to paragraph-9 of the aforesaid order has submitted that the aforesaid orders i.e., order dated 09.06.2006 and 18.08.2008 have been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent-D.S.E., Pakur to issue the order restoring the pay scale of the petitioners to which they are entitled to and further to complete the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, this writ petition is also fit to be allowed. 9. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A.-I appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand is fair enough to submit by going through the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022 that the issue involved in the present writ petition was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition. 10. He, after going through paragraph-9 of the aforesaid order has submitted that the instant writ petition may be allowed in view of the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022. 11. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition including the annexures contained therein. 12. Two orders have been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022, i.e., order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-2) and 18.08.2008 (Annexure-6). 13. This Court has perused the order dated 09.06.2006 (annexure-2, page-32), wherefrom, it is evident that based upon the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur in its meeting dated 06.06.2006, the decision was taken to re-fix the pay scale and recover the excess amount paid after following the principle of natural justice. 14. 13. This Court has perused the order dated 09.06.2006 (annexure-2, page-32), wherefrom, it is evident that based upon the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur in its meeting dated 06.06.2006, the decision was taken to re-fix the pay scale and recover the excess amount paid after following the principle of natural justice. 14. This Court has found therefrom that why such decision was taken, is not available, however, it has been referred therein that on the basis of the scrutiny of the issue of pay fixation/promotion, some irregularities have been found, but what is the nature of irregularity that is lacking in the said order. 15. The decision, although, was taken to take such decision after observing the principle of natural justice. 16. The authorities have taken decision in consequence thereof, as per Annexure-6 (page-36) dated 18.08.2008 which contains the name of 277 teachers and amongst 277 teachers, the authorities have found irregularity in fixation of pay in 58 teachers, which includes the husband of the writ petitioner. 17. Although, the original order dated 09.06.2006 contains to observe the principle of natural justice, but while acting upon such general decision, it is not available therein, as to whether, the principle of natural justice at all has been followed. Even accepting that the principle of natural justice could have followed but the question herein is which this Court finds from the original decision which contains no decision and on what basis, the irregularities for fixation of pay has been arrived at in the decision so taken by the District Education Establishment Committee, therefore, stipulation which was made to follow the principle of natural justice, as per the aforesaid general decision, according to the considered view of this Court, will be said to be mere formality, reason being that in absence of any reason, on what ground the show cause notice was issued, that is the question. 18. Since, the authorities have taken decision to issue show cause notice, the authority must be knowing about the nature of irregularities and on what basis, such conclusion of irregularity has been arrived at, so that, it be referred in the show cause notice for giving adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend and then only, the principle of natural justice will be said to be observed in its strict sense. 19. 19. Herein, in absence of the aforesaid reason, Annexure-2 dated 09.06.2006 appears to be incorrect. 20. It does not appear from Annexure-6 (page-36) that any opportunity of hearing was given, since, the content therein is that in view of the decision dated 31.12.2007, the same has been directed to be complied with by the Drawing Disbursing Officer within 15 days and since, the said direction was not complied with, hence, the pay scales of Drawing Disbursing Officers were kept at hold since, Month of March, 2008. 21. The Drawing Disbursing Officer in consequence upon the said, compelling such circumstances, has come out with the decision dated 18.08.2008, therefore, the consequential decision dated 18.08.2008, according to this Court, cannot be said to be proper in the eye of law, for two reasons; “first, the petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity of hearing; and second, the same was acted upon by the Drawing Disbursing Officer by compelling them to act upon and when the same has not been complied with, their salary has been withhold.” 22. The question herein is that when the decision has been directed to be taken by the Committee by asking show cause, then, it was bounded duty of the concerned competent authority to first issue show cause and thereafter, decision ought to have been taken. 23. But herein, the D.S.E. has been compelled to act upon the said decision by withholding their salary. 24. Learned State Counsel, however, has tried to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that the reasons have been assigned therein as referred in paragraph-9. 25. But, the said ground is not fit to be considered in view of the settled position of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1951 SCC 1088, wherein, at paragraph-9, it has been held as under:- “9. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of the Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 26. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] at paragraph 8, which reads as under:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: ?Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of 3 explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 27. The principle has been laid down therein as would be evident from the relevant paragraphs as referred and quoted hereinabove that the reason if not assigned in the impugned order, the same cannot be allowed to be supplemented by filing an affidavit. 28. The reason for such proposition is that the reason is the soul of the order and in absence thereof, such decision if taken by the authority concerned, will be in violation of principle of natural justice. 29. 28. The reason for such proposition is that the reason is the soul of the order and in absence thereof, such decision if taken by the authority concerned, will be in violation of principle of natural justice. 29. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the order lacks reason, is the violation of principle of natural justice, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519 , wherein, it has been held at paragraph-19 as under:- “… … …Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless. … …” 30. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein, at paragraph 47, it has been held as under:- “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice….. …… …..” 31. Therefore, the stand which has been taken by the State in the counter affidavit, according to the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable, due to the reason aforesaid. 32. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice….. …… …..” 31. Therefore, the stand which has been taken by the State in the counter affidavit, according to the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable, due to the reason aforesaid. 32. This Court has perused the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5938 of 2022 dated 03.10.2023. 33. It is evident from the perusal of the 2nd paragraph of the aforesaid order, wherein, also the order dated 09.06.2006 as contained in memo no.741 and the consequential office order contained in memo no.1143 dated 18.08.2008 were questioned. 34. The said orders are at Annexure-2 and Annexure-6 to this writ petition. 35. It appears from the paragraph-9 of the aforesaid order that both the orders i.e., orders dated 09.06.2006 and 18.08.2008 have been quashed and set aside. 36. The consequential direction upon the D.S.E., Pakur was to issue the order restoring the pay scale of the petitioners to which they are entitled to, for ready reference, paragraphs-2 & 9 of the aforesaid order are being referred as under:- “2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the office order contained in Memo No. 741 dated 9.6.2006 issued by respondent no. 5 whereby a direction has been issued to the respondent no. 6 to reduce the pay scale of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the consequential office order contained in Memo No. 1143 dated 18.8.2008 whereby their pay has been fixed in reduced pay scale. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the difference of salary and for fixation of the pension on revised pay scale. 9. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, the impugned order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure-2) as also the office order dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure-7) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-District Superintendent of Education, Pakur (respondent No.5) is directed to issue the order restoring the pay scale of the petitioners to which they are entitled to. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 37. The respondent-District Superintendent of Education, Pakur (respondent No.5) is directed to issue the order restoring the pay scale of the petitioners to which they are entitled to. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 37. The aforesaid order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court since has quashed the order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-2) and order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure-6) and the said order is not with respect to the petitioners of the said writ petition only, meaning thereby, coordinate Bench since has quashed the order dated 09.06.2006 and order dated 18.08.2008, hence, it would be said to be quashed and set aside with respect to all the litigants. 38. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view, based upon the aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-2) and order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure-6), are hereby quashed and set aside. 39. Accordingly, the order dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-2) and order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure-6), are hereby quashed and set aside. 40. Accordingly, the writ petitioner stands allowed. 41. The respondent concerned is directed to restore the pay scale of the husband of the writ petitioner for which he is entitled to and release all the consequential benefits thereof, within the period of two months’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order.