news details |
|
|
| Stigmatic disengagement of SPOs without hearing violates natural justice: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 13: In a significant judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the 2009 disengagement of four Special Police Officers (SPOs) of Doda district, holding that termination founded on allegations of misconduct without providing notice and an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, while allowing a petition filed by Jaswant Singh, Shakti Kumar, Kulwant Singh and Uttam Singh, set aside the disengagement order dated September 10, 2009, and directed the authorities to re-engage the petitioners within four weeks, subject to the outcome of a fresh inquiry.
The Court observed that although SPOs are engaged on a temporary basis and have no vested right to continue in service, their disengagement on allegations of misconduct cannot be treated as a simple termination of temporary engagement.
The controversy arose from an incident on August 15, 2009, when the petitioners, while returning from Independence Day duties, allegedly came under militant fire. According to the petitioners, they retaliated using their service weapons, during which SPO Jaswant Singh sustained a bullet injury.
However, the police authorities disputed this version and claimed that the injury resulted from an accidental discharge caused by the unauthorised exchange and mishandling of service weapons. The authorities further alleged that the petitioners had attempted to portray the incident as a militant attack to avoid departmental action.
Consequently, all four SPOs were disengaged through an order issued on September 10, 2009.
Aggrieved by the action, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the disengagement order was passed without conducting an inquiry involving them or providing any opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations.
Senior Advocate Gagan Basotra, assisted by Advocate Rohit Kumar Parihar, appeared for the petitioners, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, assisted by Advocate Chetna Manhas, represented the respondents.
After examining the rival contentions and the record, Justice Kazmi observed that the impugned order was founded on specific allegations of misconduct, including the unauthorised exchange of weapons and failure to report the incident correctly.
The Court held that such findings were stigmatic in nature and could adversely affect the future prospects of the petitioners.
Referring to the Division Bench judgment in UT of J&K versus Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, decided on September 10, 2026, the Court reiterated that SPOs engaged under Section 18 of the J&K Police Act, 1983, are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution but are entitled to minimum procedural safeguards where disengagement is based on allegations of misconduct.
The Court observed that an affected SPO must be informed of the allegations and the material relied upon and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before a stigmatic disengagement order is passed.
It further noted that the record did not establish that any inquiry involving the petitioners had been conducted or that they were supplied the material forming the basis of the allegations.
Holding that the disengagement order violated the principles of natural justice, the Court set it aside.
Importantly, the High Court clarified that it was expressing no opinion on whether the incident involved an accidental discharge of a firearm or a militant attack, leaving the factual controversy to be determined by the competent authority through a fair inquiry.
The Court granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law after furnishing notice, supplying the material relied upon and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The authorities were directed to pass a reasoned order within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
The Court further directed that the four petitioners be re-engaged within four weeks, subject to the outcome of the fresh inquiry, while any consequential benefits would also depend upon its outcome.
The petition was accordingly disposed of along with connected applications. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
