Judgment: In this Rule the petitioner Kalyan Kumar' Mukhopadhyay challenges the order of termination of his service. 2. The order or the communication thereof, as the case may be which is in Annexure 'C', to the petition is in the following teems: "The service of Shri Kalyan Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Peon to District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) Calcutta will stand terminated with effect from the date of following one calendar month from the date of issue of this order, due to adverse Police report against him," 3. Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, content is that this order is completely contrary to all principles of natural justice as it was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. This bas been categorically stated in the petition and has not been denied in the affidavit-in-opposition. According to Mr. Maitra the sale reason for passing the order of termination of the petitioner's service was an alleged adverse Police report against the petitioner Mr. Maitra's submission that the petitioner was entitled to know the contents of the so called adverse Police report and was also entitled to an opportunity to satisfy himself that this Police report may not have anything to do with the nature of his service with his employer. 4. Mr. Maitra in this connection drew my attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Government Branch Press & anr. v. D.B. Dellippa in AIR 1979 SC 429 . In that case it was held, inter alia, that it was perhaps open to the Government to say in view of the complaint alluded to in the Show Cause Notice against the integrity and fidelity of the employee, that the former had lost confidence in the latter and considered him unsuitable to be continued in the post which was one of trust and confidence. But when the Government instead of taking any such plea is, with obdurate, persistency, struck to the position that the employee's service has been terminated without any reason, it amounted to nearly admitting that the power reserved to the employer under the conditions of the employment, has been exercised arbitrarily". 5. According to Mr. Maitra the authorities in the instant case have acted equally arbitrarily. 5. According to Mr. Maitra the authorities in the instant case have acted equally arbitrarily. They have merely, as it were a rubber stamp, acted on an adverse Police report and terminated the service of the petitioner on the basis thereof. 6. Mr. Arun Prakash Sircac, learned Advocate for the respondents, submitted that the service of the petitioner was purely temporary and drew my attention to the letter of appointment which has been annexed to the petition. In my view of the petitioner’s services have been terminated with one month's notice without assigning any reason, it would have been perfectly in conformity .with the relevant rules. But that has not been so in this case. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Maitra a stigma bas been sought to be attached to the petitioner's character which would stick for ever in his attempt to find a by suitable service either under the Government or elsewhere. To put it differently the petitioner bas been condemned without having been given any opportunity of being heard. That being so, the order must be held to be bad as being against the basic and cardinal principle of auli alteram partem. This contention of Mr. Maitra succeeds. 7. In the result this application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. There will be a writ in the nature of Certiurari quashing the impugned order dated the 25th August 1978 which is Annexure "G" to the petition and a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the order in any manner whatsoever. This order, however, will not prevent the respondents from acting according to law. There Will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.