Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has been terminated by the District Magistrate vide order dated 16.7.2004 in exercise of power under Section 10 of Village and Road Police Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1873”). He filed an appeal against the said order of termination, which has also been rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and no regular enquiry was conducted against him before passing the impugned order of termination and, therefore, the same is illegal.

2. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Village Chowkidar is a Policeman and is a village servant. His chief duty is to watch and ward the village in his charge. He is required to carry reports to the village Headman, to assist him in tracing offenders and to make arrest as authorized by law. He is responsible to the District Magistrate for due performance of his duties. He is not a whole time employee though is a village servant. He is not prohibited from cultivating land. However, he must reside in one of the villages, for which he is responsible and cannot be employed on menial duties by members of constabulary force. He is required to attend police station twice a month on fixed dates for the purpose of reporting births and deaths. The duties of Village Chowkidar are provided in Chapter 9, Regulation 89 to 96-A of the Police Regulations besides Regulations 129, 181, 190, 257, 266, 322 and 366. Besides, for showing good conduct, the provision has been made to award “good conduct stripes” and “allowance” to Village Chowkidar under Regulation 476.

3. His service conditions are governed by the U.P. Village and Road Police Act, 1873 (U.P. Act No. XVI of 1873) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1873”). Section 10 thereof confers power of dismissal of Village Policeman upon the District Magistrate and Section 13 provides that an order passed under Section 10 would be revisable before the Commissioner. The impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate under Section 10 of the Act, 1873 and, therefore, it would be expedient to reproduce the same as under :

“10. Dismissal of village or road policeman.—The Magistrate of the district may dismiss any village policeman or road policeman for any misconduct or neglect of duty.”

4. Besides Section 14 confers power upon the State Government to frame rules in respect to the discipline of the Village and Road Police etc. and reads as under :

“14. Power to make subsidiary rules.—The State Government may from time to time frame rules—

(a) for the discipline of the village and road police;

(b) for regulating their numbers, location and duties; and

(c) for carrying out generally the purpose of this Act.”

5. Learned counsel for the parties could not place any rule framed under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act by the State Government. A perusal of the provisions of the Act and the Police Regulations makes it clear that even though a Village Chowkidar/Policeman is entitled to do his own work of agriculture etc. even after his nomination/appointment as Village Chowkidar, but he is holder of a civil post and in the matter of discipline, he is controlled by the State Government. Salary is also paid by the State Government. Act 1873 has continued by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution. After the enforcement of the Constitution, the provisions of the Act insofar as they provides for dismissal of Village Chowkidar have to be read consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. I have no hesitation in taking a view that in respect to dismissal of a Village Chowkidar even under Section 10, the provisions of Article 311 would be attracted and if there is a violation thereof, the dismissal would be illegal. However, what would be the procedure for taking action against a Village or Road Policeman is the moot question. In the absence of any rules framed under Section 14 of the Act, 1873, in