Srinagar, July 22, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Special Police Officers (SPOs) engaged under government schemes do not hold civil posts and are therefore not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution or full-fledged departmental inquiries prior to disengagement.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rajesh Sekhri dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Kirpal Singh, a former Village Defence Committee (VDC) SPO from Bhaderwah in Doda district, challenging a Single Judge order that had upheld his disengagement from service.
The appellant was disengaged by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda, in June 2015 following written complaints from local villagers and Panchayat representatives. The residents alleged that Singh routinely remained under the influence of alcohol, harassed co-villagers, issued death threats using his official service weapon, and refused to share his monthly honorarium with other VDC members as per local practice.
Following his disengagement, Singh refused to surrender his assigned arms, prompting police to register an FIR under the Arms Act at Police Station Bhaderwah to forcibly disarm him in 2019.
Challenging his removal, the appellant contended that the disengagement violated principles of natural justice and Rule 337 of the Police Rules because no formal charge sheet was served upon him and no full departmental inquiry was conducted.
Refusing to accept the contention, the Division Bench ruled that individuals appointed under government schemes, such as the Village Defence Group Scheme, occupy a distinct legal position compared to regular civil servants.
“Appointments made under a scheme or carried out through a committee would not render the incumbents as holders of a civil post,” the Bench observed, quoting the Supreme Court precedent in State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi.
“Since appellant was not holding a civil post so as to entitle him to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the provisions contained in the police rules… he cannot claim a regular departmental enquiry before his disengagement”.
Addressing the argument regarding principles of natural justice, the Bench observed that the rules of procedural fairness are not rigid mandates and must be adapted to the specific context of each case.
“Principles of natural justice are not strait-jacket formulae to be applied uniformly in all cases. Its application varies from case to case depending upon the facts and circumstances,” the Court held, noting that a detailed field inquiry conducted by the local police station had already corroborated the serious allegations against the officer through witness statements.
The High Court observed that the appellant was made aware of the accusations against him and was afforded adequate opportunity to submit his defence through a formal representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s decision, the Division Bench upheld the disengagement order and dismissed the appeal. (KDC)
