JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for a declaration that the order of removal dated 30th March 1967 passed by the Adhyaksh, Zila Parishad, Bareilly, is illegal and void. 2. The plaintiff respondent alleged that he was a permanent employee of the appellant, Zila Parishad, Bareilly. On 30th March 1967 his services were terminated. It was alleged that the termination order was illegal and void as it was passed without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff respondent to show cause. It was further alleged that the allegation made against the plaintiff was false and that he has already been acquitted of the charges from the court of sessions. The suit was contested by the Zila Parishad on the ground that the services of the plaintiff respondent had been terminated according to law and that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further alleged that the plaintiff respondent was given full opportunity to meet the charges. 3. The trial court, after examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that no opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff respondent to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him and as such the suit was decreed on 14th September 1971. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court agreed with the conclusion of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. So far as the declaration in regard to the arrears was concerned it allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of the trial court to the extent that the respondent's claim for pendente lite and future salary allowance was dismissed. Against the judgment dated 18th February 1972 no appeal was filed by the plaintiff respondent but the Zila Parishad has come up in appeal to this court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the rules framed under the District Boards Act, 1952 do not apply to the present case. His second contention is that since the plaintiff respondent had a right of appeal to the State Government the suit was not maintainable in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. His first contention is that the rules framed under the District Boards Act, 1952 do not apply to the present case. His second contention is that since the plaintiff respondent had a right of appeal to the State Government the suit was not maintainable in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. So far as the first question is concerned it is clear from Section 46 of the Zila Parishad Act that the servants in the employment of the District Boards were to be subject to the same conditions of services as they were subject to immediately before the provisions of the Zila Parishad Act came into force. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the date when the order was passed no rules were framed by the Zila Parishad. In the circumstances we have to fall back on the District Boards Act, 1952. By notification dated March 25, 1946 regulations were framed regarding dismissal, removal or reduction of Officers and servants of District Boards. It was clearly provided : "No officer or servant shall be dismissed, removed or reduced without a reasonable opportunity being given to him of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Any written defence tendered shall be recorded and a written order shall be passed thereon. Every order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be in writing and shall specify the charge brought, the defence and reasons for the order." The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have found that this rule was not followed by the Adhyaskh while passing the termination order dated 30th March 1967. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the view taken by the courts below on this question is in accordance with law. This rule would clearly apply. 6. In regard to the second submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Section 82 of the District Boards Act, first proviso, gives a right of appeal in regard to those servants who have been dismissed, on whom fine has been imposed to an amount exceeding one month's salary or orders for reduction by way of punishment etc. had been passed. No appeal has been provided against an order of termination under this proviso. had been passed. No appeal has been provided against an order of termination under this proviso. Since no appeal is provided the question of the suit being barred does not arise. In the circumstances the second submission made by the learned counsel is also without substance. 7. In the result there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.