# Ghanshyam v. D.M., Lalitpur and others - **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1134 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-07-19 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37265 of 2006 - **Bench:** A.P. Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghanshyam-v-d-m-lalitpur-and-others-40756 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India Art. 226Cancellation of Appointment-Petitioner intentionally given false affidavit-for purpose of seeking appointmentcertainly reflect the character of such candidate-held-giving false affidavit to be a reasonable ground for refusal of employment. Held: Para 15 It is true that the alleged non disclosure of a false criminal case against the petitioner may not be a ground for non suiting the petitioner but the filing of a false affidavit to gain employment will certainly reflect on the character of a candidate. The petitioner has not been able to deny the said fact and therefore, the filing of an affidavit voluntarily not disclosing correct facts in my opinion could be a reasonable basis to refuse employment. Case law discussed: 1997 (2) UPLBEC-1201 2003 (3) SCC-437 1996 (11) SCC-605 2005 (2) SCC-746 ## Text 1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37265 of 2006 Ghanshyam ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Lalitpur and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.N. Agrawal Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. U.P. Police Regulation-Regulation 96readwith Village and Road Police Act, 1873 of Oudh Laws Act, 1876, Section 36-Natural Justice-termination of village chaukidar-without show cause noticewithout enquiry on the basis of G.O. 3.6.06-held-illegal-principle of natural justice violated-order can not sustain. Held: Para 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. (Delivered by Hon'ble 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. 4. The dismissal of a village or roadpoliceman is provided for under Section 36 of The Oudh Laws Act, 1876, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "Dismissal of village or roadpoliceman.-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 misconduct, the person authorized to nominate to his office may report him for dismissal to the Magistrate of the district; 3 All] Ghanshyam V. D.M., Lalitpur and others 1135 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. 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. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39957 of 2005 Arvind Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar Sri Jagdeo Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sandeep Mukherjee S.C. Constitution of India Art. 226Cancellation of Appointment-Petitioner intentionally given false affidavit-for purpose of seeking appointmentcertainly reflect the character of such candidate-held-giving false affidavit to be a reasonable ground for refusal of employment. Held: Para 15 It is true that the alleged non disclosure of a false criminal case against the petitioner may not be a ground for non suiting the petitioner but the filing of a false affidavit to gain employment will certainly reflect on the character of a candidate. The petitioner has not been able to deny the said fact and therefore, the filing of an affidavit voluntarily not disclosing correct facts in my opinion could be a reasonable basis to refuse employment. Case law discussed: 1997 (2) UPLBEC-1201 2003 (3) SCC-437 1996 (11) SCC-605 2005 (2) SCC-746