JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. - Admittedly petitioner was appointed in December, 1983 as 'Mazdoor'. Copy of appointment letter has been filed as Annexure-l to the writ petition. It was mentioned in it that appointment or petitioner was temporary and his condition of employment shall be governed by Central Service Rules. It mentions that his service shall be terminated by giving one month's notice. It was also mentioned that his service was liable to be terminated in case of false declaration or supersession of material facts. In January, 1984 petitioner was informed that on the information received from the Employment Officer he was satisfied that the declaration furnished by petitioner was fictitious and false, and, therefore, his services were terminated in exercise of the power under Rule 19(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is not disputed on behalf of opposite parties that before passing impugned order opposite parties did not afford any opportunity to petitioner as claimed by him. In counter-affidavit it is averred that as petitioner had furnished false declaration, he was not entitled to any relief. During the course of argument learned counsel for opposite parties further claimed that in view of Lekhraj Khurana v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2111., petitioner was not entitled to any protection under Article 311 Constitution of India and he could not evoke principle of natural justice. Reliance was also placed on Union of India v. K. S. Subramaniam, (1953-80) 14 S. C. L. J. 105. : 1976 S.C.C. (L. and S.) 492. It was argued that as the petitioner's services were civilian but his posting was connected with defence, principle of Article 311 Constitution of India, were not applicable. Although no allegation was made in counter-affidavit that petitioner was not a defence employee but even assuming what has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties the order passed by opposite party cannot be sustained. In the employment letter it was mentioned that his terms and conditions of service shall be governed by Central Civil Services Rules, 1966 and irrespective of the fact whether he was defence employee or not his service conditions shall, be governed by those rules. It was necessary for the opposite parties to give notice to petitioner. Moreover, the entire basis for termination is the information given by Employment Officer that declaration furnished was false. It was necessary for the opposite parties to give notice to petitioner. Moreover, the entire basis for termination is the information given by Employment Officer that declaration furnished was false. How could this be decided without hearing petitioner. The order, therefore, was violative of, if nothing, then of natural justice. 2. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 11th June, 1984 is quashed. It shall be open to opposite party to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law. Petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.