JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Letter dated 17.04.2018, as contained in Memo No.PO/KTW/Recovery/2018/99 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby respondent No.5 – Assistant Manager (Pers.), Kathara Washery, Central Coalfields Limited, has passed an order to recover an amount of Rs.1,28,054.09/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Eight Thousand Fifty Four and Nine Paise) only, in ten equal instalments of Rs.12,805.00/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Five) only, per month, from the salary of the petitioner on the ground that the said amount has been paid in excess to the legitimate claim of the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. The said recovery is on the basis of an internal audit report. 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner is in services of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL). He is working now as Stenographer Grade-I. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that without following the principles of natural justice, the aforesaid order of recovery has been passed, which is illegal. It is his contention that no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner to explain his defence. The copy of the internal audit report has also not been served upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent – CCL, argues that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed and when the internal audit objected and the wrong fixation was brought into light, an order was passed to recover the same. 6. The order of recovery from the salary of the petitioner has a civil consequence. When the order is having a civil consequence and is to the detriment of the petitioner, it is necessary to follow the principles of natural justice by giving an appropriate notice to show cause the petitioner and ask for a reply. 7. In this case, I find that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 8. Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, on which the respondents are relying upon is a communication dated 05.04.2018 to the petitioner by the Assistant Manager (Pers.), Kathara Washery. The said document is not a show cause notice, it is only an information to the petitioner that he is being paid excess wages which will be stopped and an excess amount of Rs.1,28,054.09/-, will be recovered. The said document is not a show cause notice, it is only an information to the petitioner that he is being paid excess wages which will be stopped and an excess amount of Rs.1,28,054.09/-, will be recovered. Similar is the impugned order dated 17.04.2018, which only says that the amount of Rs.1,28,054.09/-, will be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in ten equal instalments of Rs.12,805.00/- per month. 9. From the aforesaid two letters dated 05.04.2018 and 17.04.2018, I find that no show cause was issued to the petitioner. Without issuing the show cause and seeking explanation / clarification, the respondents sought to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, from the impugned letter / order dated 17.04.2018, I find that there is a reference of internal audit report. This audit report has not been furnished to the petitioner. Based on a report, an action which is detrimental in nature, is taken against the petitioner and the said report needs to be served upon the petitioner, which has not been done here. This is another example of violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Considering what has been held above, the impugned Letter dated 17.04.2018, as contained in Memo No.PO/KTW/Recovery/2018/99, whereby respondent No.5 – Assistant Manager (Pers.), Kathara Washery, Central Coalfields Limited, is set aside. 11. Now, it has come to the notice of this Court that the recovery has already been effected from the salary of the petitioner. 12. The respondents are directed to furnish the details to the petitioner, based on which the recovery has been effected. 13. On receipt of details within four weeks from today, the petitioner will file a detailed reply putting forth his defence. 14. One personal opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner by the competent Authority to be nominated by the General Manager or any Officer in the rank of General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, who is aware of the facts of this case. 15. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, a reasoned order has to be passed strictly in accordance with law by the respondents and the same should be handed over to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of personal hearing. 16. 15. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, a reasoned order has to be passed strictly in accordance with law by the respondents and the same should be handed over to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of personal hearing. 16. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any refund, the same should be extended to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of the reasoned order. 17. If the order is passed against the petitioner, the same should be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 18. In view of the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands allowed . No order as to costs.