The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Special Police Officer (SPO) does not enjoy the same powers, privileges, and protections as ordinary police officers in terms of service conditions, especially in the case of a criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioner has challenged order No. 504 of 2013 dated 3rd August, 2013 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been disengaged from the roll of Special Police Officers (SPOs) of the District Ramban. A writ of mandamus has also been sought by the petitioner for his appointment as constable with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has further sought a writ of prohibition thereby asking the respondents not to take note of the judgment dated 6th June, 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Special Police Officer (SPO) in terms of Police Headquarter Order No. 743 of 2011 dated 24th February, 2011. Whereafter he continued to discharge his functions honestly in a dedicated and faithful manner. It is submitted that an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, whereafter challan was presented again him and the respondents without holding any enquiry and without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, disengaged/terminated his service vide impugned order dated 3rd August, 2013. It is submitted that despite the petitioner having made many representations to the respondents, the aforesaid order of disengagement has not been withdrawn by the respondents.

3. The petitioner goes on to submit that FIR No. 58/2013 for offences under Sections 336, 147, 427 RPC came to be lodged against him and challan was filed against him that was decided by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool vide his judgment dated 6th June, 2018. While convicting the petitioner and co-accused, the learned Magistrate extended benefit of probation to the accused. It has been contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the case lodged against him is absolutely false. According to the petitioner, after expiry of three years during which period he was directed to observe good conduct as per the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for recalling of the impugned order but to no effect. It has been submitted that co-accused, who are similarly situated with the petitioner, have been reinstated in their respective jobs but the petitioner continues to be without any job.

4. The impugned order of disengagement of the petitioner as SPO has been challenged mainly on the ground that in terms of Section 19 of the J & K Police Act, under which the petitioner was engaged as SPO, enjoys same powers, privileges and protection as are being enjoyed by ordinary officers of the police. On this ground, it is urged that without holding an enquiry and without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, he could not have been discharged from service.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

6. As already noted, the main contention which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an SPO appointed under Section 18 of the J & K Police Act is entitled to same privileges and protection as an ordinary officer of police. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 19 of the J & K Police Act.

7. The provisions contained in Section 19 of the Police Act came up for consideration before this Court in case titled Bilal Ahmad Sheikh v. State of J & K and others (SWP No. 2548/2017) decided on 17th September, 2021. While interpreting the said provision, this Court, after noticing the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Police Act, observed as under:-

"From a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Police Act, it is revealed that SPOs are appointed by Police Officers above a particular rank for specific purposes when the police force ordinarily employed for preserving the peace is not sufficient for its 5 SWP No. 2548/2017 preservation and for the protection of the inhabitants. The provision makes it clear that residents of neighbourhood can