Srinagar, March 15, KDC: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reinstated a Special Police Officer (SPO) who was removed from service without due process, terming the termination “illegal, unjust, and unconstitutional.” The court reiterated that SPOs enjoy the same protections as regular police officers and cannot be disengaged from service without being provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and respond to the charges levelled against them.
The petitioner Dilshada Begum was initially engaged as an SPO in District Ramban on June 8, 2013, under Order No. 369 of 2013, receiving a consolidated honorarium of ₹3,000 per month. However, she was abruptly removed from service just five months later, on November 12, 2013, through Order No. 805 of 2013, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ramban.
In her plea before the court, her lawyer argued that her disengagement was arbitrary, unilateral, and in direct violation of the protections afforded to SPOs under the J&K Police Manual and the Police Act of 1983.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while delivering the judgment—a copy of which is in the possession of Kashmir Dot Com—observed that Section 19 of the Police Act categorically states that SPOs are entitled to the same powers, privileges, and protections as regular police officers. The court also referred to Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, which mandates that no police officer can be dismissed, removed, or demoted without a reasonable opportunity to present their defense. The rule explicitly requires that the accused must be given a chance to respond both orally and in writing before any punitive action is taken.
The High Court underscored that the principle of natural justice is a fundamental pillar of legal fairness and is deeply embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The court stated that a government authority cannot take adverse action against an employee without following due process, as it would set a dangerous precedent for arbitrary dismissals.
Significantly, the respondents admitted before the court that no inquiry or prior notice was served to the petitioner before her disengagement. Instead, they justified their action by citing a clause in her engagement order that allowed for termination at any time without notice. The court rejected this argument, stating that such a clause cannot override the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
In its ruling, the court quashed the termination order and directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner as an SPO. However, it clarified that she would not be entitled to back wages for the period of her disengagement.
At the same time, the court granted the authorities the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry into the allegations against her, but only in accordance with established legal procedures. The inquiry, if initiated, must be completed within two months from the date of receiving the court’s order. (KDC
