JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel and with their consent, this petition is being finally disposed off at the admission stage. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 4.1.2008 by which the selection and recruitment of the petitioner as Constable in the Civil Police has been cancelled. 3. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 1.9.2006 the petitioner applied for selection for recruitment as a Constable. After heaving cleared the three stage examination, he was selected and recruited as a Constable on 6.9.2006. He completed his J.T.C. And R.T.C. Course and while undergoing training in the 15 Battalion P.A.C., Agra, he was served with the impugned order cancelling his recruitment. It appears that in pursuance of an order of the Director General of Police dated 29.6.2007, the certificates submitted by the recruitments were reverified and the Tehsildar Bhongoan vide his report dated 29.9.2007 informed the authorities that the caste certificate of the petitioner on the basis of which he was selected, was not issued from his office and therefore, the present impugned order has been passed. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without notice or opportunity to the petitioner and in fact even the Tehsildar’s report shows that the petitioner belonged to O.B.C. Category. 5. It is admitted to the respondents that the order was passed ex parte, but it is contended that since the petitioner had used a fabricate caste certificate, his selection has been cancelled in view of his undertaking. The question is whether this can be done without an opportunity to him to prove that the report of the Tehsildar was incorrect or that the certificate in fact was issued by his office. It is on record that the petitioner in fact belonged to the OBC category. It is also not denied that before recruiting him the certificate had been verified earlier. Assuming that the appointment was temporary or on probation, but a perusal of the order shows that it is stigmatic and punitive. The order follows an ex parte enquiry and costs an aspersion on the petitioner. The Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., (2000) 5 SCC 152 , has held that such an order amounts to dismissal and therefore, a notice was necessary. The order follows an ex parte enquiry and costs an aspersion on the petitioner. The Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., (2000) 5 SCC 152 , has held that such an order amounts to dismissal and therefore, a notice was necessary. It has gone on to hold that notice is also required under para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Recently a Division Bench of our Court has exhaustively dealt this issue in Paras Nath Pandey v. Director, North Central Zone Culture Centre, 2008(10) ADJ 283 , that such an order cannot survive. 6. There is yet another facet to the case. The order is solely based upon the report of the Tehsildar dated 29.9.2007 but that report is also ex parte. An ex parte report which is the motive of inflicting action upon a person which visits him with civil consequences, cannot be acted upon without confronting the person with it. 7. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra to take a fresh decision in the case of the petitioner after hearing him in accordance to law within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be entitled to cost. ———— [