HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 Reserved On: 9th of September, 2026. Pronounced On: 22nd of September, 2026. Uploaded On: 22nd of September, 2026. Whether the operative part or full Judgment is pronounced: Full. Suhail Ahmad Wani, (34 Years) S/O Mohd. Abdullah Wani R/O Nadihal, Bandipora. … Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, Advocate with Ms Nighat Amin, Advocate. V/S 1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/ Srinagar. 2. Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bandipora. … Respondents Through: - Mr T. A. Lone, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE. (JUDGMENT) 01. The Petitioner, through the medium of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the validity of Order No. 262 of 2022 dated 3rd of November, 2022 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bandipora/ Respondent No.3 herein, whereby his services as SPO have been disengaged from the rolls of the District SPO Cadre Bandipora with effect from the date he was arrested in case FIR No. WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 175/2022 registered by Police Station Bandipora for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/22/29 NDPS Act. 02. The Petitioner claims to have been engaged as SPO in the Respondent-Department in terms of Order No. 141 of 2009 dated 21st of August, 2009. Thereafter, it is stated that the Respondents utilized the services of the Petitioner in volatile area, where he discharged his duties with utmost dedication and honesty. 03. It is further stated by the Petitioner that, while he was discharging his duties with the Respondent-Department to the best of his capability and with great honesty, he came to be implicated in a false and frivolous case bearing FIR No. 175/2022 registered by Police Station Bandipora for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, with which case the Petitioner is not even remotely connected. However, on the basis of the aforesaid false and frivolous case, the Respondents are stated to have issued the impugned Order dated 3rd of November, 2022, whereby the name of the Petitioner was struck off from the rolls of District SPO Cadre Bandipora with effect from the date he was arrested in the aforesaid case. It has been finally prayed that the Petition of the Petitioner be accepted and the impugned Order be quashed. 04. Upon notice having been issued, the Respondents have filed their Reply/ Objections, inter alia, stating therein that the Petitioner was removed from the rolls of District SPO Cadre Bandipora pursuant to his arrest in connection with case bearing FIR No. 175/2022 registered by Police Station Bandipora for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/22/29 of the NDPS Act. 05. It is further stated that the as per the very engagement of the Petitioner as an SPO, the same was conditional, subject to fair discharge of duties and, as per the language of the engagement order of the Petitioner, his services were liable to be disengaged, whenever found unsatisfactory, or not required by the Department, without any intimation, however, in the WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 present case, the Petitioner was found involved in a criminal case related to NDPS Act. It is, therefore, prayed that the Petition filed by the Petitioner, being without any merit, be rejected. 06. Heard and considered. 07. Admittedly, the Petitioner was engaged as SPO in the Respondent-Department in the year 2009, whereafter, he discharged his duties with the Respondent-Department, as assigned to him. Subsequently, the Respondents, vide the impugned Order, disengaged the services of the Petitioner from the rolls of District SPO Cadre Bandipora, on the ground that he was found involved and arrested in a case related to NDPS Act. 08. From a plain reading of the Order impugned, it is clearly discernible that the Respondents, while disengaging the services of the Petitioner, have not referred to any notice having been issued to the Petitioner or any inquiry having been conducted by them on the subject before proceeding to inflict the heavy punishment of disengagement from service upon the Petitioner. Even, from the perusal of the relevant record made available before this Court by the Respondents, there is nothing forthcoming as to fact that the Respondents have issued any prior notice to the Petitioner or conducted any enquiry before disengaging the services of the Petitioner. 09. The issuance of a show cause notice, before issuing an order which is prejudicial to the rights and interests of an employee, is based upon the 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’. WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 10. In this regard, a reference can be made to the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled “Canara Bank & Ors. V. Debasis Das & Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 557”. Paragraphs No. 13 and 15, being relevant, are extracted as under: “13. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common- sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. 15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the “Magna Carta”. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”. 11. In “Dharampal Satampal Limited V. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors., 2015 (8) SCC 519”, the Hon’ble Apex Court, at Paragraph Nos. 21, 24, and 28, has held as under: “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 WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 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.” 12. Again, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in “Pawan Kumar V. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317”, while relying upon its earlier Judgment WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 passed in “Avtar Singh V. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471”, has held that mere suppression of material information or furnishing of false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/ terminate an employee. 13. Similar views were taken by three different Division Benches of this Court in: (i) Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) titled “Sharaz Hussain Shah V. State of J&K and Ors., 2024 (2) JKJ 38 [HC]”; (ii) WP (C) No. 289/2025 titled “Union Territory of J&K and Ors. V. Arsam Imtiyaz Malik” in its Judgment dated 17th of February, 2025 (authored by me); and (iii) LPA No. 152/2025 titled “UT of J&K and Ors. V. Shaheen Shah” vide Judgment dated 6th of August, 2025. 14. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court headed by the Lord Chief Justice, in “LPA No. 90/2026 titled Union Territory of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah”, reported as 2026:JKLHC-SGR:320-DB, in identical facts, as are in the present case, while concurring with the Judgments passed by this Court in “State of J&K and Ors. V. Mohammad Iqbal Mallah, 2014 SCC OnLine J&K 58”; and “UT of J&K and Ors. v. Shahen Shah (LPA No. 152/2025 decided on 6th of August, 2025)”, held that in these cases Sections 18 and 19 of the Police Act, 1983 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India will not operate and that only the immediate safeguard of a notice and a reply to the satisfaction of the Respondent therein shall operate. It has been further held that it shall be the requirement that wherever a stigma or allegation has resulted into such disengagement of the SPOs, they shall be entitled to a notice prior to the disengagement and after such notice is given and reasonable opportunity for filing reply or hearing is given, the authority shall be free to pass appropriate orders. It has been further laid down that where the services of an SPO are terminated or disengaged on account of any misconduct, then the opportunity of hearing shall be a minimum requirement and doctrine of audi alteram partem has to be followed. WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 15. Applying the aforesaid exposition of law to the facts of the case on hand, admittedly, no show cause notice (SCN) or enquiry was held in the case of the Petitioner, before passing the impugned Order to disengage him from the rolls of the District SPO Cadre Bandipora, for having been allegedly involved and arrested in a case related to NDPS Act. The Respondents have, thus, proceeded against the Petitioner raising stigmatic accusation, for which he was required to be heard in his defence. The irrefutable conclusion that could be drawn is that the Respondents indeed have violated the basic fundamental principle of natural justice, while ordering disengagement of the services of the Petitioner as SPO, thereby condemning him unheard. The Petitioner, even though working as an SPO, was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before inflicting the major punishment of disengagement of service from the Respondent-Department. Therefore, the Order impugned having been passed in direct conflict with the rules of natural justice, if allowed to stand, would compound gross injustice against the Petitioner. 16. Viewed thus, the instant Petition is allowed and, as a corollary thereto, by issuance of a ‘Writ of Certiorari’, the impugned Order No. 262 of 2022 dated 3rd of November, 2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The Respondents, by a ‘Writ of Mandamus’, are directed to reinstate the Petitioner back into service with all consequential benefits, excluding the payment of emoluments for the period with effect from the date of his disengagement till the date of restoration of his services. However, the Respondents shall be at liberty to revisit and re-consider the case of the Petitioner with reference to his alleged involvement in case FIR No. 175/2022 registered in Police Station, Bandipora relating to NDPS Act, after following due process of law by issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) and providing him adequate opportunity of hearing. 17. Record, as produced, be returned to the Respondents through their Counsel, against proper receipt. WP (C) No. 3057/2022 CM No. 7683/2022 18. Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with the connected CM. (M. A. CHOWDHARY) JUDGE SRINAGAR September 22nd, 2026 “TAHIR” i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/ No. Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document