S. No. 123 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2619/2023 CM No. 2856/2024 CM No. 6206/2023 Ali Mohammad Mir and Anr. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 10.03.2025 1. Petitioners were engaged as SPOs in Police Department vide Order No. 254/2019 dated 28.05.2019 and in pursuance thereof, they reported for duties. According to the petitioners, they had been discharging their duties to the best of their capacity and honesty. They were appreciated by the Department and their names were recommended for Appreciation Certificates. Petitioners continued to discharge their duty assigned to them as SPOs in the Department and were transferred from one place to another from time to time. However, to their utter dismay and surprise, impugned order no.240 of 2023 dated 24.05.2023 came to be issued, wherein it is mentioned that as per report of SHO and SDPO Tangmarg, petitioners are involved in corrupt practice as they had grabbed Rs.2000/- from civilians by threatening them and the petitioners have been terminated from the services with immediate effect. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of the petitioners have been terminated without giving them an opportunity of hearing. He also submits that petitioners have been disengaged because of allegation that they are involved in corrupt practice and have received Rs.2000/- from civilian by threatening them, therefore, they were not given an opportunity of being heard. 3. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted regarding the conduct on the basis of which petitioners were disengaged. Respondents in their objections state that there was no need to conduct an enquiry and there is also no need to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 4. Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, learned counsel for respondents, submits that engagement of petitioners as SPOs is governed by Advertisement Notice, which stipulated that without conducting any enquiry, petitioners could be terminated. 5. It is true that the engagement of petitioners was SPOs and their services have been terminated on the basis of report made by SHO and SDPO Tangmarg, wherein it is mentioned that petitioners are involved in corrupt practice. If there is an allegation against petitioner about corrupt practice, then they ought to have given opportunity of being heard with respect to allegations which have become basis for their disengagement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgement passed in a case titled as Gh. Haider v. State of J&K and Ors. reported in 2014(3) JKJ 461, and has submitted that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has been decided in said judgement. In the judgement supra, it has been observed that writ petitioner was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before terminating his services. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. Impugned order no.240 of 2023 dated 24.05.2023 is quashed. Petitioners are restored to the posts of SPOs in J&K Police Department with consequential benefits from the date of their disengagement up to their restoration of services as SPOs. However, respondents shall be at liberty to conduct an enquiry regarding allegations made against the petitioners and pass fresh orders after following and complying with audi alteram parterm. 8. Disposed of. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 10.03.2025 Shabroz