Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia under Section 10 of the North Western Provinces Village and Road Police Act, 1873, whereby his services, as village policeman/chaukidar in Village Maritar, Police Station Bansdeeh, Ballia, have been dispensed with by an order of dismissal.

2. On 27.11.2003, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice asking him to show-cause as to why he be not dismissed from service under Section 10 of Act No. XVI of 1873 read with Section 36 of the Act No. 18 of 1876. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice on 6.12.2003. Thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal was passed by the District Magistrate Ballia on 16.7.2004.

3. The contention of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, he was appointed to a post, i.e. village chaukidar, in connection with the affairs of State of U.P., as would be evident from the duties assigned under Section 34 of the Act of 1876. It was contended that as no detailed procedure has been prescribed in the U.P. Police Regulations or Oudh Laws Act, 1876 for conducting the disciplinary proceedings against a village chaukidar/police-man and as the said post comes within the definition of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, as such, his services were governed by the said Rules. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from service could only have been imposed after following the due and proper procedure of holding a regular inquiry after issuance of a charge-sheet under the Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules of 1999 and this not having been done, the impugned order was not sustainable.

4. Secondly, it was contended that in view of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, the impugned order was not, at all, justified. A perusal of the reply discloses that some dispute with certain ‘pattidars’ regarding some land had been going on for long, the said pattidars had been raising some dispute or the other, from time to time, which led to the proceedings under Section 151/107/116, Cr.P.C. A civil dispute was also pending adjudication vide Suit No. 487 of 2003 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division with the pattidars. One Sri Raghunath Pandey was siding with the pattidars and it is on his instigation, that unnecessary dispute was being raised. It is Sri Pandey, who submitted complaint against the petitioner after the murder of his son. The complaint was actuated by mala fide and the petitioner had nothing to do with the murder. The petitioner did not have any criminal history, nor he had any connection with criminals nor he had been involved in any criminal activity. The petitioner had nothing to do with the protest by the villagers, which was clearly on account of the murder of a local person. The villagers nor any other local person had made any complaint against the functioning of the petitioner except Sri Raghunath Pandey, who was acting out of malice. The complaint and the proceedings with respect thereto were initiated on cooked up facts. The petitioner further annexed therewith character certificates issued by the Gram Pradhan and various members of Zila Panchayat, Ballia, all of whom had vouched for the integrity and good character of the petitioner.

5. Based on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the show-cause notice, as also the impugned orders were passed on frivolous grounds and same were absolutely unreasonable, therefore, liable to be quashed.

6. Violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice was also alleged.

7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the charges against the petitioner were of complicity with criminals and, therefore, his continuance as village chaukidar was not acceptable. The In-charge Inspector of Police Station Bansdeeh submitted a report on 1.10.2003 against the petitioner. Based t