Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 15: Justice Rajesh Sekhri of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that Special Police Officers (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 meet the charges levelled against them.
Petitioner Dlishada Begum, who was appointed as a Special Police Officer (SPO) with a monthly honorarium of Rs. 3,000 was disengaged from her position by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban, without any prior notice or inquiry. The disengagement was based on allegations of poor performance, and the respondents argued that her engagement terms allowed for termination without prior notice.
The petitioner contended that SPOs are appointed under Rules 18 and 19 of the Police Manual and are entitled to the same powers, privileges, and protections as regular police officers. She argued that her disengagement was arbitrary, violated the principles of natural justice, and was carried out without any inquiry or show-cause notice. She sought the quashing of the disengagement order and her reinstatement with back wages.
The court observed that Section 19 of the Police Act, 1983, explicitly states that SPOs have the same powers, privileges, and protections as regular police officers. Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, further mandates that a police officer cannot be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, both orally and in writing, against the proposed action.
The court noted that this provision applies unless the officer is convicted on a criminal charge, or it is impractical to provide such an opportunity, or it is in the interest of state security.
Emphasising that the principle of natural justice is rooted in fairness and equity, ensuring that individuals are treated equally and justly the court observed,"It is a fundamental principle of fair legal procedure and due process in legal and administrative actions 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".
Finding that the respondents had admitted to disengaging the petitioner without any inquiry or notice, solely based on the terms of her engagement order Justice Sekhri remarked, ".. petitioner came to be disengaged from service without any enquiry/notice because of the terms and conditions of her engagement order that "she will liable to be terminated from her service any time without giving her prior notice". The said action on the part of respondents besides being illegal and unjust is unconstitutional"
Allowing the petition the bench set aside the impugned disengagement order. It directed the reinstatement of Dlishada as an SPO, subject to the condition that she would not be entitled to the monthly honorarium for the period she was disengaged. The court also granted the respondents the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry against the petitioner, in accordance with the law, and to conclude the same within two months from the date of the order. —JNF |
