By the Court.—The appellant was a village policeman appointed under the provisions of Oudh Laws Act, 1876 read with the provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations and U.P. Road Police Act, 1873. The appellant was dismissed from service by the order of the District Magistrate, Lalitpur dated 3rd June, 2006 which came to be assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 37265 of 2006 complaining of violation of the aforesaid provisions particularly Section 36 of the 1876 Act. The writ petition was allowed on 19th July, 2006 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice whereafter the District Magistrate passed a fresh order on 5th October, 2006 giving reasons for the dismissal. It is this order which was subjected to a challenge before the learned single Judge in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal.

2. The contention raised by the appellant was that the provisions of Article 311 have been violated and there being no proper enquiry the order deserves to be set aside. Appellant’s counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) ESC 1625. The learned single Judge found that a show cause notice had been issued on 24th August, 2006 in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 19th July, 2006 to which the appellant submitted a reply whereafter the impugned order was passed which was in conformity with law. The learned single Judge further found that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant did not come to his aid so as to attract the provisions of Article 311 in the matter governing the service of the appellant. The learned single Judge after discussing the facts as indicated in the order of the District Magistrate held that on facts the District Magistrate has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of material placed before him, and therefore in view of the reasons recorded by the District Magistrate, the decision cannot be faulted with and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra), and the appellant who enjoys a unique position of employment, is entitled to all the benefits that a regular Government servant is entitled to as provided for under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to contradict the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 24th May, 2006 hence, the impugned order is vitiated.

4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the appellant does not enjoy any such status of a post that can be termed as a civil post or for that matter any service condition that may allow him any such protection as contended on behalf of the appellant. He further submitted that the entire objections taken by the appellant have been taken into account by the District Magistrate and therefore the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the District Magistrate do not deserve any interference.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that the provisions of the Oudh Laws Act, 1876 do not require a full scale enquiry and the only requirement by the District Magistrate is to give a reasoned order. It is for this reason that the principles of natural justice were read into Section 36 of the 1876 Act, and vide judgment dated 19th July, 2006 the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate. Neither the provisions of Section 36 nor any other provisions of the 1873 Act, or the Police Regulations do require the holding of a regular enquiry in relation to a village policeman. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any such provision which may require the invoking of this principle.

6. At this stage it may be pointed out that this Court in the case of Hridayanand v. State of U.P. a