JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The respondent was a police inspector incharge of police station since 1952. On 14th February 1969 he was posted as second officer at a police station. He made representations against this order but without any success. He thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court. 2. A learned single Judge held that as incharge of police station, the respondent was entitled to and was getting a special pay of Rs. 20/- per month. He lost this special pay by reason of his being posted as second officer, removal of the respondent from the office of Incharge Police Station was imposition of punishment mentioned in clause 7(d) Police Act. It was also held that the procedure laid down in Regulation 490 of the Police Regulations was attracted. Imposition of this punishment without following the procedure laid down in regulation 490 of the U. P. Police Regulation was found illegal and it was quashed. Aggrieved, the Dy. Inspector General of Police has come up in appeal. 3. Removal from any office of special emolument is specifically mentioned as a punishment in clause (d) of Sec. 7. This could be imposed upon a police officer of the rank held by the respondent. It is not disputed that incharge of a police station is entitled to a special pay of Rs. 20/-per month. This would be nothing else than special emolument within the meaning of Sec. 7(d). the respondent was removed from the post of special emolument when he was discharged from the office of the police station and posted as second officer of a police station. This action was clearly tantamount to imposition of punishment mentioned in clause 7(d) of the Police Act. 4. Regulation 478 read with Regulation 478-A indicates the procedure liable to be followed before imposing the various punishments mentioned in the Police Act. It is noticeable that neither of these two provisions prescribe any statutory procedure for imposing the punishment mentioned in clause 7(d) viz. removal from any office of special emolument. We are unable to uphold the finding that the procedure prescribed by para 490 of the Police Regulation was attracted. 5. The position therefore is that the Police Act or the Police Regulation do not prescribe any statutory procedure for imposing this punishment. The matter is left to the general law. 6. removal from any office of special emolument. We are unable to uphold the finding that the procedure prescribed by para 490 of the Police Regulation was attracted. 5. The position therefore is that the Police Act or the Police Regulation do not prescribe any statutory procedure for imposing this punishment. The matter is left to the general law. 6. The fact that a person who is holding office of an Incharge Police is as a matter of right entitled to the special emolument of Rs. 20/- per month coupled with the fact that the removal from such office is characterised by the Police Act as a punishment, inevitably show that the charged officer has a right to the special emolument under his service conditions and the imposition of the punishment amounts to the taking away of a vested right. In this situation principles of natural justice are attracted and the punishment could not f be imposed except consistently with the principles of natural justice vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1269. 7. Cases where it has been held that the prescribing of a special procedure may exclude the applicability of principles of natural justice are not applicable, because here no procedure, whatsoever, has been prescribed for imposing the punishment mentioned in Sec. 7(d) of the Police Act. It is not denied that the respondent was removed from the office of special emolument without being given any opportunity whatever. This violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned order void. 8. In the result, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.