A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arvind Nath Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Chaukidar under the provisions of Regulation 96 of the U.P. Police Regulations, read with the provisions of N.W.I. Village and Road Police Act, 1873 and The Oudh Laws Act, 1876. By the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2006 the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the District Magistrate, Lalitpur with immediate effect on the basis of some recommendations having been made by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur.
(3.) The petitioner contends that the aforesaid order has been passed without offering opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving a show cause to explain the allegations made against him. The petitioner further asserts that he is not aware of any such report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur nor did the District Magistrate, Lalitpur (respondent No. 1) provide an opportunity for verifying the allegations contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.;