Srinagar, August 10, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the disengagement of a Special Police Officer (SPO) who had failed to resume duty after allegedly receiving threats from militants, observing that a police official’s refusal to perform his duties under such circumstances was sufficient reason for disengagement.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a petition filed by Hemo Hamid Wani, challenging an order passed by the Director General of Police, J&K, on January 24, 2026, rejecting his representation seeking re-engagement.
Wani was engaged as an SPO in April 2012 and was posted with the IRP 18th Battalion at Reshipora, Shopian, in 2015. According to his petition, he proceeded on medical leave during a period of unrest and subsequently received threats from militants, following which he did not report back to duty. When he later sought to resume his duties, he was not permitted to join.
His representation seeking re-engagement was rejected by the DGP following earlier directions of the High Court, prompting him to challenge the decision.
The petitioner argued that his disengagement without a formal inquiry, charge sheet or opportunity of hearing was contrary to Articles 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution and Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules.
The High Court rejected the contention, relying on earlier Division Bench judgments holding that SPOs engaged under Section 18 of the Police Act are temporary appointees engaged on consolidated wages and do not hold statutory civil posts.
The court said that although Section 19 of the Police Act confers on SPOs the same powers, privileges and protections as police officers in certain situations involving the maintenance of law and order, it does not confer the statutory service protections applicable to regular police personnel.
“The petitioner, who was engaged as an SPO, was not entitled to any right of hearing or enquiry keeping in view the nature of his engagement,” the court held, adding that the authorities were therefore not required to conduct an inquiry or provide him an opportunity of hearing before disengaging him.
The court also considered the petitioner’s contention that he had failed to report for duty because of threats from militants. It observed that even assuming that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing, his admitted failure to attend duty under such circumstances constituted sufficient reason for disengagement.
“A police official of whatever rank, if he gets frightened and threatened by the militants and refuses to attend his duties then only God can save this Country,” the court observed.
The court further held that providing a hearing in the circumstances of the case would have amounted to an “empty formality” and found no illegality or unreasonableness in the DGP’s order rejecting the petitioner’s representation.
The petition was accordingly dismissed. Advocate Shabir Ahmad Dar appeared for the petitioner. (KDC)
