P.B. Bajanthri, J.The petitioner has questioned the validity of the order bearing No. KUVi/MaSaNi-8/711/2012-13 dated 14.5.2013 and endorsement bearing No. KuVi/MaSaNi-8/2906/2013-14 dated 24/26.8.2013 vide Annexures-"F and G" respectively, by which special increment granted to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of M.Phil degree qualification has been withdrawn.

2. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Librarian in the Kuvempu University, Shimoga District. While working as such he has acquired M.Phil. degree through Distance Education.

3. The State Government evolved policy decision to grant special increment to encourage teaching and other staffs of the University who have acquired Ph.D/M.Phil qualification. In this regard, number of orders have been issued and the same has been implemented by the respondents to those who are eligible for a special increment on account of acquisition of Ph.D/M.Phil degree. On 28/29-05-2012, the respondents granted one special increment to the petitioner with effect from 1.9.2008 for having acquired M.Phil degree, copy of the said order has been produced as Annexure-"D" to the petition.

4. On 2/8-01-13, respondents withdrew the special increment granted to the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled for the special increment on account of acquisition of M.Phil degree, since under Appendix-IV(1)(xxiv) there is a bar for grant of special increment to those employees who have acquired M. Phil qualification through distance education. The same has been communicated to the petitioner on 14.5.2013. Thereafter, on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have addressed a letter dated 24/26-08-2013 to the State Government as per Annexure-"G". The petitioner is aggrieved by the withdrawal of the special increment and has therefore filed the above writ petition.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that special increment granted to him has been withdrawn unilaterally without notice or hearing. It was further contended that while in service, employees can acquire M. Phil qualification through distance education only and the object of granting special increment is to encourage the employees of the University to acquire higher qualification and gain more knowledge which would be useful while discharging the duties of the post to which they are attached. Therefore, it is immaterial how an employee acquire Ph.d/M. Phil qualification whether through regular or distance education. If the special increment is granted only to those employees who have acquired Ph.d/M.Phil qualification other than the distance education, it amounts to discrimination. It was further pointed out that reasons quoted for withdrawing the special increment is with reference Appendix-IV (XXIV) which relates to "teachers and librarians". The said clause does not refer to Asst. Librarian. Therefore, the impugned decision is without application of mind.

6. The respondents have not filed statement of objections. However, while defending the impugned decision it was contended that there is a prohibition clause to not to grant special increment to those employees who have acquired M. Phil qualification through distance education method. As long as that clause is intact and not challenged the respondents are prevented from granting special increment to those employees who have acquired M. Phil qualification through distance education. It was further contended, by wrong interpretation special increment was granted by it and it was not in accordance with policy decision.

7. The impugned decision in withdrawing the special increment granted to the petitioner is with reference to a clause in the Government Order dated 24.12.2009. The said clause does not include the post of Assistant Librarian, on the contrary, it includes teachers., librarians and Physical Education cadres whereas the petitioner is in the cadre of Asst. Librarian (special selection grade). Therefore, the impugned order/communication suffers from non-application of mind. It is to be noted that rightly or wrongly the petitioner has been granted special increment for acquisition of M.Phil qualification through distance education by which he is benefited monetarily and it has got civil consequences. Therefore, before withdrawing/canceling/modifying insofar as special increment granted to the petitioner is concerned, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to issue show-cause notice specifically pointing out that he is not entitled in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government and after receipt of explanation of the petitioner the respondents should have taken decision either to upheld the grant of special increment or to withdraw the same. The principle laid down by various Courts is that notice is the first limb of the principle that no one should be condemned unheard. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively of the case he or she has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his effective representation. In the absence of notice of kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case/matter before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important and prime principle of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance by shades with time. On this short ground the impugned order dated No. KUVi/MaSaNi-8/711/2012-13 dated 14.5.2013 and endorsement bearing No. KuVi/MaSaNi-8/2906/2012-13 dated 24.8.2013 vide Annexures-"F and G" are liable to be quashed.

8. Time and again Courts have held that if any adverse order is to be passed against employees by the employer/State/Authorities/its functionaries, the principle of natural justice has to be complied with in order to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action. It is to be noted that the Courts have held that even in respect of administrative orders, which are adverse to the employee, principle of natural justice must be complied with. In the present case, by the impugned order, the petitioners pay has been reduced, consequently he is entitled for show-cause notice.

9. Hence the impugned order dated No. KUVi/MaSaNi-8/711/2012-13 dated 14.5.2013 and endorsement bearing No. KuVi/MaSaNi-8/2906/2013-14 dated 24/26.8.2013 vide Annexures-"F and G" are hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take necessary action in accordance with law.

10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.