JUDGEMENT

01. The petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) on 02.08.2006 and was allotted belt No. 493.He was initially posted as SPO at Post Sonwa was subsequently transferred from Sonwa to Luroo vide Order No. 633 of 2007 dated 15.10.2007. The petitionerwas posted for examination duty on 01.11.2007 at Higher Secondary School, Neel, where the Class 10th examination was being conducted. It is submitted that while discharging his duties, he was implicated in a false case and FIR No. 241/2007 for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 RPC in Police Station, Banihal and he faced trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Banihal.

02. The contention of the petitioner is that while on duty, where class 10 th examination was being conducted and he was maintaining law and order in the examination centre, when an altercation occurred between him and Muzaffar Hussain Dang, who was helping some students in cheating, and was stopped by the petitioner. This resulted in registration of false case against him. The petitioner faced trial for the offences under Page 2 of 9 Section 341/323/325 RPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges by the learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Banihal, vide its judgment dated 23.11.2012.

03. The servies of the petitioner were terminated by respondents without providing any notice to him. The petitioner approached the respondents and he was informed that his services were disengaged as FIR was registered against him. The services of the petitioner were disengaged merely on the basis of the registration of FIR without holding any enquiry and without providing any opportunity of being heard.In fact, neither any notice of discharge was served upon him nor any copy of disengagement order was provided to him.

04. The petitioner, immediately after his acquittal, approached respondent No. 5 along with the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2012 with a request to reinstate him as SPO but no decision was taken by the respondents. The petitioner, having no other recourse, served a legal notice, dated 09.07.2015 through his counsel upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for reinstating him on the post of SPO, but no action in this regard was taken.

05. The petitioner also approached respondent No. 5 by way of an RTI application seeking information regarding the basis on which he was terminated, but no information in this regard was provided to him. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for quashing the order of his termination dated 15.11.2007 and also seeks a Page 3 of 9 direction to the respondents to reinstate him as SPO with all the consequential benefits.

06. The petitioner has assailed his order of disengagement/termination on the ground that the order impugned was passed without holding any enquiry or providing any opportunity of being heard to him and against the principles of natural justice, no opportunity of being heard was affordedto him and principles of natural justice. The petitioner, being an SPO, is entitled to same protection and privilege as of other ordinary police officials in terms of the J&K Police Act. The respondents without following the procedure prescribed in the J&K Police Act have terminated his services. The petitioner has been honourablyexonerated in the trial in which he was falsely implicated, as such, is entitled to his reinstatement/engagement as an SPO.

07. It is further submitted that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any inquiry was conducted by the respondents before terminating his services, as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents have violated the principles of natural justice by not conducting any inquiry, and even in the case of a temporary a