( 1 ) THROUGH this Letters Patent Appeal, order of the learned Single Judge dated august 29, 1995 is challenged. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was appointed as Octroi clerk by the Panchayat on April 1, 1977. He was posted at Octroi Naka established by the panchayat. On April 1, 1986, Panchayat gave contract for collection of octroi duty on its behalf. Since no posting order was given to the petitioner, the petitioner wrote letter dated April 4, 1986 to the Panchayat to give him posting. Through letter dated April 12, 1986, the petitioner was informed that the octroi staff had to work under the contractor and that although petitioner was already instructed orally to work under the contractor, he had not reported for duty. By letter dated April 18, 1936, the petitioner wrote to the Panchayat that he was informed about the contract for collection of octroi but he was also not told as to under what terms and conditions, he had to work under the contractor. The petitioner informed the panchayat that he would continue to be employee of the Panchayat. Thereafter, by letter dated May 31, 1986, the Panchayat wrote to the petitioner that inspite of the instructions given to him, he had not reported for duty; the petitioner was told to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service within three days. The petitioner responded by letter dated June 10. 1986 that he had reported for duty but he was not assigned any work. The petitioner also informed that he was informed by the contractor that his name was not included in the list of employees who were to work under him. Thereafter, the Panchayat passed resolution dated June 30, 1986 terminating the service of the petitioner as he had remained absent with effect from, April 1, 1986 although he was asked to join duty by letter dated April 12, 1986. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 3702 of 1986. ( 3 ) THIS Court (Coram : R. C. Mankad, j.) allowed the petition on September 30,1986 on the ground that in case the petitioner was found having committed misconduct of remaining absent from duty without, leave, action terminating his service could not be taken without giving him opportunity of being heard, meaning thereby, opportunity to controvert the charge of misconduct. Since it was not given, resolution dated June 30, 1986 was quashed. Panchayat was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages payable from April 1, 1986. This order was challenged through Letters Patent appeal No. 164 of 1992. By judgment dated december 8, 1992, the appeal has been allowed; judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside and the special civil application No. 3702 of 1986 restored for rehearing. Thereafter, by impugned judgment dated august 29, 1995, petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds inter alia, that the petitioner, being temporary employee, is not entitled to opportunity of being heard. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, through this appeal, the petitioner is challenging the action of the panchayat terminating his service and also the conclusion reached by the learned Single judge. ( 5 ) SHORT question for determination is whether the principles of natural Justice are attracted to the facts of the present case. Perusal of the order of appointment dated april 1, 1977 stipulates that the appointment is temporary, terminable in the event of default committed at Octroi Post. The appointment may have been shown temporary but looking to the nature of assignment, it was to continue. The only condition for termination is default committed in the discharge of duties. There is no such allegation against the petitioner, therefore, termination is not in accordance with the terms of appointment. Moving further, the allegation is the petitioner remained absent from April 1, 1986 unauthorized. First of all, there is no communication from the panchayat asking the petitioner to join and work under the Octroi Contractor. The petitioner asked the Panchayat where he has to work. Again, he was asked to work with the contractor. Naturally, he asked under what condition, he has to work with the contractor, conditions are not supplied. He was simply asked to join at the cost of termination of service. He did it but he was not allowed to join by the contractor. This fact is also reported, but his service is terminated by the impugned resolution. Termination on two grounds, namely absent without leave and disobedience of order of the Panchayat. Both these grounds were not available under the terms of appointment. Assuming the Panchayat could do so, but after holding inquiry into the matter giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain charges against him. Termination on two grounds, namely absent without leave and disobedience of order of the Panchayat. Both these grounds were not available under the terms of appointment. Assuming the Panchayat could do so, but after holding inquiry into the matter giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain charges against him. ( 6 ) IN PARSHOTTAM LAL DHINGRA v/s. UNION OF INDIA [ air 1958 SC 36 ], the apex court said that where it is intended to inflict punishment on the employee, opportunity for showing cause against proposed punishment is to be extended irrespective of the nature of appointment. This view is consistently followed in series of decisions. Even a daily wager is entitled to opportunity before the action is taken against him. [see NAR SINGH PAL V/s. UNION OF india AND OTHERS (2000 AIR SCW 1141)]. ( 7 ) ADVERTING to this case, it is found that the Panchayat terminated the petitioners service for two reasons, but without holding inquiry, though action is punitive. Therefore, it should have been preceded by inquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case particularly in absence of stipulation in the order of appointment to do away with the service of the petitioner in this manner. ( 8 ) APPEAL is allowed. Order of the learned Single Judge dated August 29, 1995 and Resolution of the Panchayat dated June 30, 1986 are set aside. Petitioner is reinstated to the post of Clerk. Ho shall be deemed to be in continuous service on the post of Clerk and paid full back wages besides other consequential benefits for the intervening period. This judgment be implemented in two weeks. No order as to costs. .