HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

SWP No. 1137/2009

CM No. 3214/2022

IA No. 1512/2009

Amrish Kumar

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. B. S. Bali, Advocate

Vs

State of J&K and another

.….Respondent(s)

Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

OR DE R

08.02.2023

01.

The petitioner was serving as SPO from 1999 onwards. The

petitioner was proficient in driving and as such was assigned the

driving duty. The petitioner came to suffer an order of disengagement

passed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda vide an order dated

SPO/Dis/09/11116-25 dated 20.03.2009. The order of disengagement

was not passed on the premise that the term of the engagement of the

petitioner has come to an end but on the ground of the petitioner being

in a drunken position in the course of his duty. This order of

disengagement was passed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda

without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order

of disengagement is stigmatic in nature which generated civil

consequences of loss of engagement of the petitioner.

02.

The petitioner was subjected to a criminal trial for his

alleged state of drunkenness. The court of the District Judicial Mobile

Magistrate, Doda vide an order dated 12.05.2010 came to acquit the

petitioner of the charge under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act

12

2 SWP No. 1137/2009

thereby vindicating his innocence with respect to accusation against

him. The order of disengagement was passed by the Sr. Superintendent

of Police, Doda on 20.03.2009. Thus within a period of one year the

petitioner had stood clear of the accusation alleged against him, in

terms of acquittal order dated 12.05.2010.

03.

The petitioner came to question his disengagement through

the medium of the present writ petition. The very fact that the petitioner

was condemned unheard and was left to bear stigma of his

disengagement on the basis of being in a drunken position and as such

the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda ought to have first put the

petitioner to a show-cause to explain his alleged state of conduct but

the same was not done by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda

thereby resulting denial of fairness of treatment to the petitioner besides

condemning unheard. The impugned order is thus bad in the eyes of

law, and as such the consequences coming out of the impugned order

need to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The

Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda is directed to consider the re-

engagement of the petitioner as SPO with retrospective effect on

notional basis without any monetary benefits for the period with effect

from his date of engagement till date of consideration of his re-

engagement. Needful compliance be carried out within two months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Disposed of.

(Rahul Bharti)

Judge

Jammu

08.02.2023

Muneesh