Serial No. 66 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2309/2021 CM(7441/2021) c/w i)CCP(S) 274/2021 ii)WP(C) 1073/2021 CM(3595/2021) iii)CCP(S) 55/2022 Mudasir Manzoor …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Adv Mr. M A Wani, Adv. VERSUS UT of Jk and Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 15-09-2025 1. The issues involved in the instant petition are akin and analogs to each other as such are disposed of together here under. WP(C) 2309/2021 CCP(S) 274/2021 (i) In the instant petition, the petitioner herein states to have been engaged as Special Police Officer (SPO) in terms of order No. 548/2012 Dated 27- 12-2012 thereafter re-engaged vide order dated 26-06-2019, however, stand disengaged in terms of order No. 318/2021 Dated 13-10-2021 on the ground of absent from duty. (ii) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the premise that the same being sigmatic in nature has been issued without following principles of natural justice and also overlooking the fact that the petitioner have had been taken ill during the said period and had informed the department about the said ailment. (iii) Reply to the petitioner has been filed by respondents, wherein it is been admitted that the petitioner came to be engaged as SPO on 30-12-2012 and on account of his unauthorized absence in terms of order dated 29- 08-2018, the services of the petitioner as SPO were terminated, however, on account of his miserable domestic conditions, the petitioner was again provided an opportunity to serve the department and consequently came to be re-engaged on 20-06-2019 and that the petitioner however, absented from the duty unauthorizedly from 26-08-2021 where upon in terms of order dated 13-10-2021, the services of the petitioner were terminated. (iv) It is further stated that the services of the SPO is contractual in nature and can be terminated/dis-engaged at any time without assigning any reason and since the petitioner absented from duty unauthorizedly, the services of the petitioner were disengaged validly. WP(C) 1073/2021 CCP(S) 55/2022; (i) In the instant petition, the petitioner herein states to have been engaged as SPO in terms of order No. 548/2012 Dated 27-12-2012 by respondent No. 4, however, after discharging his duties, as such, for a considerable period or more than 21 years, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide impugned order dated 24-04-2021 owing to the reason that the petitioner facilitated favorable false verification report in respect of one namely Ghulam Rasool War S/o: Ab Rehman War and committed a gross mis-conduct entailing his disengagement. (ii) The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order on the premise that the same came to be passed under colorable exercise of power and in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch, as without following due process of law and that the petitioner came to be subjected to the punishment of the disengagement of services in order to protect other erring officials. (iii) Objections have been filed by the respondents to the petition, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the petitioner after his engagement as SPO came to be disengaged in terms or order dated 24- 04-2021 as the petitioner during his deployment in police Station Kupwara had prepared and got signed a false verification report/clearance report in respect of one Ghulam Rasool War S/o Ab Rehman War, who was involved in number of criminal cases registered in Police Station Kupwara and the petitioner thus, committed gross mis-conduct and cheating inasmuch, as negligence in discharge of his duties. (iv) It is further stated that though a formal departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 26-04-2021 by DPO Kupwara and based upon the recommendations of the said inquiry the petitioner was found to be involved and the main defaulter qua the issuance of the false verification/clearance report in respect of the said Ghulam Rasool War, S/o: Ab Rehman War, therefore, necessitated termination of his services. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. It is significant to mention here that engagement of SPO inasmuch as matter related thereto including their powers, privileges, protection, and duties are provided under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Police Act SVT 1983, which for the sake of brevity and convenience are extracted hereunder: - 18. Special Police Officers- When it shall appear that any unlawful assembly, or riot or disturbance of the peace has taken place, or may be reasonably apprehended, and that the Police force ordinarily employed for preserving the peace is not sufficient for its preservation and for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of property in the place where such unlawful assembly or riot or disturbance of the peace has occurred, or is apprehended, it shall be lawful for any Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector to apply to the nearest Magistrate to appoint so many of the residents of the neighbourhood as such Police Officer may require to act as Special Police Officers for such time and within such limits as he shall deem necessary; and the Magistrate to whom such application is made shall unless he see cause to the contrary comply with the application. 19. Powers of Special Police Officers – Every Special Police Officer so appointed shall have the same powers, privileges and protection, and shall be liable to perform the same duties and shall be amenable to the same penalties, and be subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary officers of Police. 20. Refusal to serve as Special Police Officers- If any person being appointed a Special Police Officer as aforesaid shall, without sufficient excuse, neglect or refuse to serve as such, or to obey such lawful order or direction as may be given to him for the performance of his duties, he shall be liable, upon conviction before a Judicial Magistrate to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for every such neglect, refusal or disobedience. 3. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions of the Act and reverting back to the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged by respondents as SPO’s pursuant to their respective engagement orders issued by the respondent 4 herein and admittedly, the disengagement of the petitioner in WP(C) 2309/2021 has been ordered by respondent 4 herein upon the recommendation of respondent 5 herein on the ground that the petitioner has absented from duties, whereas in WP(C) 1073/2021, the petitioner’s services are disengaged on the ground of mis- conduct. 4. Since Section 19 Supra of the Act specifically provides that every SPO so appointed shall have the same powers, privileges, and protection and shall be liable to perform the same duties and shall be amenable to the same penalties and be subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary police officers of the Police, thus the same suggests that an SPO, even though not holding a post under the Police Act SVT 1983, yet is entitled to the same protection and amenable to the same penalties as ordinary officers of the Police. Although under Section 20 supra SPO could also be proceeded against, in the event the SPO refuses to serve as SPO rendering him liable for conviction before a Judicial Magistrate to a fine not exceeding of Rs 50 for every such negligent, refusal or disobedience, yet, it cannot, in law, be contemplated that the SPO, if sought to be disengaged, would not be entitled to a show cause notice if not to be subjected to an enquiry under the Act and rules framed thereunder, in that, the issuance of a show cause notice before issuing an order which is prejudicial to the rights and interests of a person has been held to be based upon sound legal doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem, which doctrine inter-alia provides that no person should be condemned unheard, in that, the right to hear would mean that party must know the cause he or she has to meet and must have a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case and the said requirement of issuance of show cause notice as also affording an opportunity of hearing has been held to be flowing directly from the said doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem. A reference in this regard to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Dharampal Satampal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central” reported in 2015 (8) SCC 519 would be relevant wherein, at paras 21, 24, and 28, following has been held: - [21. In common Law, the concept and doctrine of natural justice, particularly which is made applicable in the decision-making by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, has assumed a different connotation. It is developed with this fundamental in mind that those whose duty is to decide, must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred both without bias and they must give (sic an opportunity) to each of the parties to adequately present the case made. It is perceived that the practice of aforesaid attributes in mind only would lead to doing justice. Since these attributes are treated as natural or fundamental, it is known as “natural justice”. The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today are: (i) rule against bias i.e. nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the party concerned i.e. audi alteram partem. These are known as principles of natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is the duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a “reasoned order”. “24. The principles have a sound jurisprudential basis. Since the function of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is to secure justice with fairness, these principles provide a great humanizing factor intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principles are extended even to those who have to take an administrative decision and who are not necessarily discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions. They are a kind of code of fair administrative procedure. In this context, procedure is not a matter of secondary importance as it is only by procedural fairness shown in the decision-making that a decision becomes acceptable. In its proper sense, thus, natural justice would mean the natural sense of what is right and wrong.” “28. It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not.”] 5. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law, inasmuch as the facts of the cases in hand emerging from the record available on the file, the only escapable conclusion that could be drawn is that the respondents indeed have violated the basic fundamental principle of natural justice while ordering disengagement of the petitioner as SPO having condemned the petitioner’s unheard. 6. Viewed thus, the instant petitions succeed as a consequence whereof the impugned Order No. 318/2021 dated 13-10-2021 in WP(C) 2309/2021 and order No. Est/SPO/2021-12665-75 dated 24-04-2021 impugned in WP(C) 1073/2021 are quashed as a corollary whereof respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners as SPOs however, with liberty to revisit and reconsider the cases of the petitioners after issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioners and providing them adequate opportunity of hearing. 7. In view of the disposal of the petitions as above, the proceedings in the connected contempt petitions shall stand closed. 8. A copy of this order shall be placed on the record file of both the petitions. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 15-09-2025 Sarvar Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No