J&K High Court: Special Police Officers Cannot Be Disengaged Without Due Process
JAMMU, March 15: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed that Special Police Officers (SPOs) cannot be disengaged arbitrarily and must be given a fair opportunity to present their case before termination. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Dilshada Begum, an SPO who was disengaged from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ramban, without any prior notice or inquiry.
The petitioner, appointed on a monthly honorarium of ₹3,000, was removed from service based on allegations of poor performance. The respondents contended that the terms of her engagement permitted termination without prior notice. However, the High Court ruled that this action violated established legal protections and the principles of natural justice.
Dilshada Begum argued that SPOs, appointed under Rules 18 and 19 of the Police Manual, enjoy the same powers, privileges, and protections as regular police officers. She contended that her disengagement was arbitrary, lacked procedural fairness, and directly contravened the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
The High Court cited Section 19 of the Police Act, 1983, which explicitly states that SPOs are entitled to the same legal safeguards as regular police officers. Additionally, Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, mandates that no police officer can be dismissed, removed, or demoted without being given a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless convicted of a criminal offense or where state security concerns override such due process.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal found that the petitioner had been removed solely based on the terms of her engagement order, without any inquiry or show-cause notice. “The petitioner was disengaged from service without due process, making the action not only illegal and unjust but also unconstitutional,” Justice Nargal remarked. The court emphasized that the principle of natural justice is a cornerstone of fair legal procedures, ensuring equal treatment and protecting individuals from arbitrary state actions.
The ruling also underscored that due process is an integral part of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and protection against discrimination. “Fairness and equity demand that individuals are not condemned unheard, reinforcing public trust in the legal and administrative system,” the court observed.
Setting aside the impugned disengagement order, the High Court directed the immediate reinstatement of Dilshada Begum as an SPO. However, it ruled that she would not be entitled to back wages for the period of her disengagement. The respondents were granted liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry against her, if necessary, in accordance with due process. The court instructed that any such inquiry be completed within two months from the date of the order.
