SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(J&K) 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU 
RAJESH SEKHRI, J.
Dilshada Begum - Petitioner 
versus 
State of J&K & Ors. - Respondent 
SWP No. 2046 of 2015 
Decided on : 13-03-2025 



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K.D.S Kotwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.

Disengagement of a Special Police Officer without inquiry or notice violates principles of natural justice and is unconstitutional.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Police Act, 1983 - Section 19 - J&K Police Rules, 1960 - Rule 359 - Disengagement of Special Police Officer - Petitioner challenged her disengagement order on grounds of violation of natural justice, asserting entitlement to the same protections as regular police officers. Court found disengagement without inquiry or notice unconstitutional. (Paras 1-14)

(B) Natural Justice - The principle of natural justice mandates that individuals must be given a fair opportunity to present their case before adverse decisions are made against them, integral to Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer and was disengaged without notice or inquiry based on alleged poor performance. Respondents claimed termination was justified under engagement terms.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the disengagement was illegal and unconstitutional due to lack of inquiry and notice, ordering reinstatement without back wages pending inquiry.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disengagement violated principles of natural justice and if the petitioner was entitled to protections under the Police Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioner, as an SPO, had the same rights as regular officers, her disengagement without due process was unlawful.

Result: Petition allowed; disengagement order set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for quashment of her disengagement order and consequent reinstatement and release of her wages.

2. As factual narration of the present case, from pleadings of the parties would unfurl, petitioner came to be engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) vide order no. 369 of 2013 with belt no. 327 on 08.06.2013 on a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 3,000/- per month. After about five months, she came to be disengaged from the roll of SPO of District Ramban with immediate effect by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban-respondent no. 4 vide order no. 805 of 2013 dated 12.11.2013.

3. Case of the petitioner is that SPOs are appointed under rules 18 and 19 of the Police Manual and they have the same powers, privileges and protection, as enjoyed by an ordinary officer of police force. It is allegation of the petitioner that she came to be disengaged by the respondents with a single stroke of pen, on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, without any enquiry and in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice was served upon her.

4. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of her disengagement, primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, respondents are affront with the contention that name of the petitioner came to be struck off from the roll of SPOs on the ground of poor performance without any inquiry/notice because it was terms and conditions of her engagement order that “she will liable to be terminated from her service any time without giving her prior notice”. It is also contention of the respondents that since petitioner ceases to be a member of their organisation, she is not entitled to any benefit, available to a personnel, who is on the continuous roll of the organisation.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsels for the parties have reiterated their respective stand in arguments.

8. The petitioner has assailed impugned order of her disengagement primarily on the ground that SPOs appointed under the Police Manual are entitled to same powers, privileges and protection as are enjoyed by an ordinary officer of the police force, in terms of Rule 19 of the Manual.

9. Section 19 of the Police Act 1983, (“the Police Act” for short), deals with the powers, privileges, protection and duties of SPOs. It reads as:-

19. “Special Police Officer:- Every Special Police Officer so appointed shall have the same powers, privileges and protection and shall be liable to perform the same duties and shall be amenable to the same penalties, and be subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary Officers of the Police.”

10. It is pertinent to underline that Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, 1960 provides that a delinquent police official must be given an opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him and Sub-Rule (11) (2) of the said Rule specifically provides that said official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and in writing against the proposed penalty. It reads thus:-

359. Procedure in departmental enquiries (1) xxxxx xxxxx (11) (1 ) xxxxxx (2) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, provided that this clause shall not apply:-

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge;

(b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or (c) where the Sadar-i-Riyasat is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top