Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dilshada Begum vs State Of J&K & Ors on 13 March, 2025
..
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 2046/2015
Reserved on - 07.03.2025
Pronounced on- 13.03.2025
Dilshada Begum ..... Petitioner
q
Through: Mr. K.D.S Kotwal, Advocate.
vs
State of J&K & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and
Kashmir for quashment of her disengagement order and consequent reinstatement
and release of her wages.
2. As factual narration of the present case, from pleadings of the parties
would unfurl, petitioner came to be engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO)
vide order no. 369 of 2013 with belt no. 327 on 08.06.2013 on a consolidated
honorarium of Rs. 3,000/- per month. After about five months, she came to be
disengaged from the roll of SPO of District Ramban with immediate effect by
Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban-respondent no. 4 vide order no. 805 of
2013 dated 12.11.2013.
3. Case of the petitioner is that SPOs are appointed under rules 18 and 19 of
the Police Manual and they have the same powers, privileges and protection, as
enjoyed by an ordinary officer of police force. It is allegation of the petitioner that
she came to be disengaged by the respondents with a single stroke of pen, on the
basis of false and frivolous allegations, without any enquiry and in violation of
principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice was served upon her.
2 SWP 2046/2015
4. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of her disengagement,
primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Per contra, respondents are affront with the contention that name of the
petitioner came to be struck off from the roll of SPOs on the ground of poor
performance without any inquiry/notice because it was terms and conditions of
her engagement order that “she will liable to be terminated from her service any
time without giving her prior notice”. It is also contention of the respondents that
since petitioner ceases to be a member of their organisation, she is not entitled to
any benefit, available to a personnel, who is on the continuous roll of the
organisation.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned counsels for the parties have reiterated their respective stand in
arguments.
8. The petitioner has assailed impugned order of her disengagement primarily
on the ground that SPOs appointed under the Police Manual are entitled to same
powers, privileges and protection as are enjoyed by an ordinary officer of the
police force, in terms of Rule 19 of the Manual.
9. Section 19 of the Police Act 1983, (“the Police Act” for short), deals with
the powers, privileges, protection and duties of SPOs. It reads as:-
19. “Special Police Officer:- Every Special Police Officer so appointed shall
have the same powers, privileges and protection and shall be liable to perform
the same duties and shall be amenable to the same penalties, and be
subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary Officers of the Police.”
10. It is pertinent to underline that Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, 1960
provides that a delinquent police official must be given an opportunity to meet the
charges levelled against him and Sub-Rule (11) (2) of the said Rule specifically
3 SWP 2046/2015
provides that said official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause orally and in writing against the proposed penalty. It reads thus:-
“359. Procedure in departmental enquiries
(1) xxxxx
xxxxx
(11) (1 ) xxxxxx
(2) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause
orally and also in writing against the action proposed to be taken in
regard to him, provided that this clause shall not apply:-
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank
on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a
criminal charge;
(b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove an
officer or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some
reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not
reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity
of showing cause; or
(c) where the Sadar-i-Riyasat is satisfied that in the interest of
the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that
officer such an opportunity.
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx”
11. If Section 19 of the Police Act is read in conjunction with Sub-Rule (11) (2)
of Rule 359, it is manifest that since an SPO enjoys the same protection as an
ordinary officer of police, holding a substantive post, his services cannot be
disengaged unless he is provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and to
meet the charges levelled against him.
12. The principle of natural justice is founded on public policy and rooted in
the concept of fairness and equity to ensure that similarly circumstanced persons
are treated equally and justly. The core of this principle is that it emphasizes the
right of individuals to be heard and to present their case before a decision is made
that could affect them adversely. It is a fundamental principle of fair legal
procedure and due process in legal and administrative actions to safeguard
individual rights and maintain public trust in the system. Therefore, it is an
integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality
and equal protection before the laws.
4 SWP 2046/2015
13. Back to the case on hand, there is admission on the part of respondents that
petitioner came to be disengaged from service without any enquiry/notice because
of the terms and conditions of her engagement order that “she will liable to be
terminated from her service any time without giving her prior notice”. The said
action on the part of respondents besides being illegal and unjust is
unconstitutional.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and
impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, petitioner is directed to be reinstated
as SPO, subject, however, to the condition that she will not be entitled to the
monthly honorarium for the period she was disengaged. Respondents, however
shall be at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, as per law, occupying
the field and conclude the same within a period of two months from the date copy
of this order is made available to them. Reinstatement of the petitioner shall be
subject to outcome of the said enquiry.
15. Disposed of.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
13.03.2025
Abinash
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes
