HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.2708/2021 Mohd. Aslam, Age 27 years S/O Abdul Hamid, R/O Kadhwa, Tehsil Basantgarh, District Udhampur-182101 ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate. V/s 1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001 2. Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu-180001 3. Senior Superintedent of Police, Udhampur-182101. ….Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Nazia Fazal, AC vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 22.07.2025 1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of Order No.286 of 2021 dated 07.09.2021, passed by the respondent no.3-SSP, Udhampur, whereby he was disengaged from the post of SPO held by him and consequent reinstatement. 2. As factual narration of the present case, from pleadings of the parties would unfurl, petitioner along with 99 persons came to be engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) vide Order No. 165 of 2017 and assigned Belt No. 1014 on 22.03.2017. After about four and a half years, he came to be disengaged from the rolls of SPOs of District Udhampur, with immediate effect by Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur-respondent no.3 vide Order No. 286 of 2011 dated 07.09.2021 („impugned order‟). Sr. No. 49 2 3. Case of the petitioner is that SPOs are appointed under Rules 18 and 19 of the Police Manual and they have the same powers, privileges and protection, as enjoyed by an ordinary officer of police force. It is allegation of the petitioner that he came to be disengaged by the respondents with a single stroke of pen, on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, and that too without any enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice was served upon him. 4. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of his disengagement, primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Per contra, respondents are affront with the contention that name of the petitioner came to be struck off from the rolls of SPOs on the ground of false and frivolous case without any inquiry/notice, because it was terms and conditions of engagement order that “engagement of these SPOs is purely temporary and they are liable to termination without any notice”. It is also contention of the respondents that since petitioner ceases to be a member of their organisation, he is not entitled to any benefit, available to a personnel, who is on the continuous roll of the organisation. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and considered the matter. 7. Learned counsels for the parties have reiterated their respective stand in arguments. 8. The petitioner has assailed impugned order of his disengagement primarily on the ground that SPOs appointed under the Police Manual are entitled to same powers, privileges and protection, as are enjoyed by an ordinary officer of the police force, in terms of Rule 19 of the Manual. 3 9. Section 19 of the Police Act 1983, (“the Police Act” for short), deals with the powers, privileges, protection and duties of SPOs. It reads as:- 19. “Special Police Officer:- 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 the Police.” 10. It is pertinent to underline that Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, 1960 provides that a delinquent police official must be given an opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him and Clause (2) of Sub-Rule (11) of the said Rule specifically provides that said official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and in writing against the proposed penalty. It reads thus:- “359. Procedure in departmental enquiries (1) xxxxx xxxxx (11) (1 ) xxxxxx (2) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, provided that this clause shall not apply:- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge; (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or (c) where the Sadar-i-Riyasat is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that officer such an opportunity.” 11. Since an SPO enjoys the same protection as an ordinary officer of police, holding a substantive post, if Section 19 of the Police Act is read in conjunction with Sub-Rule (11) (2) of Rule 359, it is manifest that his services cannot be disengaged unless he is provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and to meet the charges leveled against him. 4 12. The principle of natural justice is founded on public policy and rooted in the concept of fairness and equity to ensure that similarly circumstanced persons are treated equally and justly. The core of this principle is that it emphasizes the right of individuals to be heard and to present their case before a decision is made that could affect them adversely. It is a fundamental principle of fair legal procedure and due process, in legal and administrative actions is to safeguard individual rights and maintain public trust in the system. Therefore, it is an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the laws. 13. Reverting to the case on hand, there is admission on the part of respondents that petitioner came to be disengaged from service, without any enquiry/notice because of the terms and conditions of his engagement order that “engagement of these SPOs is purely temporary and they are liable to termination without any notice”. Such an action to disengage an SPO from his services, in view of any condition of engagement that services of such SPO can be dispensed with, without holding an enquiry, in the considered opinion of this court is not legally and constitutionally permissible, when his services are amenable to J&K Police Rules, 1960, especially when no exception is carved out as provided in Clause (2) of Sub-Rule 11 of Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960. The said action on the part of respondents besides being illegal and unjust is, thus, unconstitutional. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and foregoing reasons, the impugned order, without following due process of law and affording an opportunity of being heard, is found to have been passed arbitrarily, and being in contravention to the law and the Constitution is liable to be quashed. As a result, 5 the present petition is allowed and impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, petitioner is directed to be reinstated as SPO, subject, however, to the condition that he will not be entitled to the monthly honorarium for the period he was disengaged. Respondents, however, may be at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, as per law, occupying the field. Enquiry, if initiated, shall be concluded within a period of two months. 15. Petition is disposed of, as allowed, accordingly, along with connected application(s). Jammu: 22.07.2025 Raj Kumar ) (MA CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Raj Kumar 2025.07.22 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document