Judgment B. P. Sinha, J. 1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has impugned the order Annexure-1 dated 23-6-1988, whereby he has been directed not to come for work with effect from 25th of June 1988. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner has been found guilty of forgery and fabrication and therefore has to be removed from service. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on daily wages under the respondent Corporation. It appears that the petitioner was one of the applicants for for the post of supervisor in the Corporation. He had made an application for consideration of his case for appointment and he had also forwarded a letter to the Chairman of the Bureau of Public Enterprises. Department of the Finance, Patna, That letter has been produced as Annexure-B. He enclosed therewith the office order of the respondent corporation dated 19-4-1986 in which a liss of petson was given who had been provided certain duties, and towards the end of that order it was stated that if their work was found satisfactory their cases will be considered for regularisation. It appears tbat this last part of the order was suspected to be an interpolation. 3. By Annexure-12 dated 16-5-1988, the Managing Director of the respondent corporation asked the petitioner to submit the original of the office order of which he had submitted to the Bureau of Public Enterprises. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner wrote to the Managing Director stating that he had merely submitted and photo copy of the office order and that the original order must be in the office of the Corporation. Ho suspected that some manipulation may be done with a view to darken the further of the petitioner. Thereafter by the impugned order Annexure-1 services of the petitioner have been terminated, and he was directed sot to come for duty from 25-6-1988. 4. The contention raised by the counsel for ths petitioner is that the order of termination Annexure-1 proceeds on the basis that the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence of fraud and fabrication, and consequently his services have been terminated. 4. The contention raised by the counsel for ths petitioner is that the order of termination Annexure-1 proceeds on the basis that the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence of fraud and fabrication, and consequently his services have been terminated. Since such of finding is recorded in the impugned order of termination is casts a stigma against the petitioner and therefore, principles of natural justice required that he should hava been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter before the aforesaid order was passed. Couniel for the respondent Corporation contends that the petitioner had been working on daily wages and he had no right to hold post. He, therefore, submits that he cannot challenge the impugned order on the ground of breach of principles of natural Justice. It is now well settled that even when a person appointed on a temporary or ad hoc basis and has no right to hold the post, if his services are terminated on an adverse finding, and the order of termination casts a stigma against him, the principles of natural justice are attracted, and such an order must be quashed if it is in breach of principles of natural justice This is not a case where the employment of a person working on daily wage has been discontinued simplioitor. It is a case where his services have been discontinued because respondent found him guilty of forgery and fabrication, and the impugned order terminating him service records this fact. Patently, the petitioner has been removed from service as a measure of punishment. It was, therefore, necessary for the Corporation to give him an opportunity of being heard before terminating his service. 5. Counsel for the respondent Corporation then submitted that there is no fixed procedure for complying with the principles of natural justice, and that in different circumstances different procedure may be adopted. The proposition cannot be disputed, but where a person is sought to be removed from his service on the ground that he is guilty for forgery and fabrication, the least that should be done is to hold an inquiry before the finding of guilt is recorded and his services terminated. In the instant case, I find that even a show cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner. Annexure-12 cannot be said to be a show cause notice. In the instant case, I find that even a show cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner. Annexure-12 cannot be said to be a show cause notice. Secondly it does not state the facts which must be necessarily stated ia all show cause notices issued against an employee whose services are sought to be terminated. Annexure-12 is only a request from the Managing Director, asking the petitioner to produce the copy of the office order, photo copy of which he had submitted to the Bureau of Public Enterprises. This cannot be said to be a notice to show cause. It does not mention any act or omission of the petitioner which may amount to misconduct, nor does it refer to any rule or law under which the action is contemplated, nor does it mention whether any punishment may be inflicted against the petitioner if he is found guilty. It must, therefore, be held that Annexure-12 is not a show cause notice at all. A show cause notice must give sdequats notice to the concerned employee of the facts alleged against him, the action is contemplated, and the rule of law under which such actian is contemplated. An employee cannot be taken by surprise by the issuance of an innocuous letter which is later treated as a show cause notice. Consequently Annexure 1 has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner after casting a stigma without even issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, and, obviously without holding any inquiry into the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner had no opportunity to represent his case before respondent Corporation. In these circumstances I have no option but to quash annexre 1. The same is accordingly quashed. This writ application is allowed. The quashing of Annexore-1 dees not pit elude the respondent corporation from initialing a proceeding afresh in accordance with law. Writ application allowed.