Srinagar, Sept. 24, KDC: Holding that even a Special Police Officer (SPO) cannot be condemned unheard or subjected to stigmatic termination without a show cause notice and an opportunity to defend himself, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the summary disengagement of a Bandipora-based SPO who was dismissed from service following his arrest in a narcotics case.
Allowing a writ petition, Justice M. A. Chowdhary set aside Order No. 262 of 2022 dated November 3, 2022, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bandipora, which had struck off petitioner Suhail Ahmad Wani from the rolls of the District SPO Cadre Bandipora with retrospective effect from the date of his arrest.
The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to reinstate Wani back into service with all consequential benefits, excluding the payment of emoluments for the period between his disengagement and the actual restoration of his service.
The petitioner, a resident of Nadihal in Bandipora, was initially engaged as an SPO in August 2009. According to his plea, he performed his duties dedicatedly in sensitive areas until he was allegedly implicated in FIR No. 175/2022 registered at Police Station Bandipora under Sections 8, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Following his arrest in the criminal case, the SSP Bandipora issued the impugned order disengaging his services without initiating any departmental proceedings.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, assisted by Advocate Nighat Amin, argued that the order was arbitrary and punitive. Counsel submitted that removing an official from service on serious criminal allegations without serving a show cause notice or conducting an inquiry violated the fundamental tenets of natural justice.
In response, Deputy Advocate General T. A. Lone contended that an SPO’s engagement is purely contractual and temporary, subject to satisfactory discharge of duties. The government argued that under the engagement terms, an SPO’s services can be terminated without prior intimation if found unsatisfactory, and that Wani’s arrest in an NDPS case justified his immediate removal.
Scrutinizing the records, Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed that the order of disengagement contained no mention of any prior notice or departmental inquiry.
“From a plain reading of the Order impugned, it is clearly discernible that the Respondents, while disengaging the services of the Petitioner, have not referred to any notice having been issued to the Petitioner or any inquiry having been conducted by them on the subject before proceeding to inflict the heavy punishment of disengagement from service upon the Petitioner. Even, from the perusal of the relevant record made available before this Court by the Respondents, there is nothing forthcoming as to fact that the Respondents have issued any prior notice to the Petitioner or conducted any enquiry before disengaging the services of the Petitioner,” the court said.
Stressing that the doctrine of audi alteram partem forms an irreducible minimum requirement in administrative action involving civil consequences, the Bench referenced a series of precedents, including the recent Division Bench judgment in Union Territory of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah (2026).
The court held that while temporary engagements such as SPOs do not attract the procedural protections of Article 311 of the Constitution or Sections 18 and 19 of the Police Act, an opportunity of hearing remains mandatory whenever an order carries a stigma or is founded on allegations of misconduct.
Evaluating the nature of the termination, Justice Chowdhary observed, “Admittedly, no show cause notice (SCN) or enquiry was held in the case of the Petitioner, before passing the impugned Order to disengage him from the rolls of the District SPO Cadre Bandipora, for having been allegedly involved and arrested in a case related to NDPS Act. The Respondents have, thus, proceeded against the Petitioner raising stigmatic accusation, for which he was required to be heard in his defence. The irrefutable conclusion that could be drawn is that the Respondents indeed have violated the basic fundamental principle of natural justice, while ordering disengagement of the services of the Petitioner as SPO, thereby condemning him unheard. The Petitioner, even though working as an SPO, was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before inflicting the major punishment of disengagement of service from the Respondent-Department. Therefore, the Order impugned having been passed in direct conflict with the rules of natural justice, if allowed to stand, would compound gross injustice against the Petitioner.”
Quashing the disengagement order, the High Court granted liberty to the police department to revisit and reconsider Wani’s case in connection with his alleged involvement in the NDPS case, strictly in accordance with due process of law by issuing a show cause notice and affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. (KDC)
