SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 3427

SUDHIR AGARWAL
HRIDAYANAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Brajendra Pratap, Ram Kumar Verma for the Petitioner; Addl.C.S.C. for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

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












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top