JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—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. 4. The dismissal of a village or road-policeman is provided for under Section 36 of The Oudh Laws Act, 1876, which is quoted hereinbelow : “Dismissal of village or road-policeman.—The Magistrate of the district may dismiss any village-policeman or road-policeman for any misconduct or neglect of duty. Where any village-policeman is guilty of neglect of duty or other mis-conduct, the person authorized to nominate to his office may report him for dismissal to the Magistrate of the district; and such Magistrate shall dismiss him accordingly, unless the Magistrate has reason to think that such dismissal would be improper." 5. A perusal of the same indicates that the dismissal shall be made only if the Magistrate has reason to think that such a dismissal is required. The principles of natural justice are implicit in the said provision and therefore it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have at least given a show cause notice to the petitioner before dispensing his services in order to ensure fairness. 6. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that any show cause or opportunity was offered to the petitioner prior to the removal order. 6. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that any show cause or opportunity was offered to the petitioner prior to the removal order. Learned Counsel for the respondent has been unable to point out any recital in the said order, which could justify the aforesaid action of the District Magistrate. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3-6-2006 is unsustainable being in violation of principles of natural justice and is hereby set aside. The District Magistrate, Lalitpur shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with the rules preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. ————