Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 9: In a landmark judgment, State High Court today held that Special Police Officers (SPOs) cannot be terminated from the services without holding enquiry.
The judgment has been passed in a petition filed by an SPO namely Ghulam Haider challenging his termination from the service. The petitioner along with 119 other persons was engaged as SPO on contractual basis vide Order No.SPO/01/3381-88/C dated February 26, 2001 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda.
It was averred that the petitioner was performing his duties to the entire satisfaction of his higher authorities and played active role in various anti-militancy operations. In one such operation in Khithar Bonjwah area, he sustained injuries and remained admitted in the hospital, for which he was also rewarded by the respondents.
It was further contended that despite rendering best services and actively participating in anti-militancy operations, the respondents without any reason or providing him an opportunity of hearing or serving any notice terminated his services.
After hearing Advocate Anil Gupta appearing for the petitioner whereas Senior AAG Gagan Basotra for the State, Justice Tashi Rabstan quashed the termination order of the petitioner with direction to the respondents that they are at liberty to conduct inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the rules and complete the same within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. “The petitioner’s retention in service or otherwise shall depend on the outcome of such inquiry”, the High Court added.
“The Section 19 of Police Act 1983 states that every Special Police Officer 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 police”, High Court said, adding “petitioner cannot be terminated from services on the ground of misusing his official position without conducting any enquiry”.
“Thus, the respondents are prevented from taking the plea that the petitioner was not borne on the cadre of service or was not holding the post substantively. It is not in dispute that the initial engagement of petitioner was temporary in nature, therefore, the simplicitor order of termination would not have given him any right to challenge the same. However, the specific stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was removed from service as he had misused his official position by harassing one Din Mohammad, which is stigmatic in nature”, the High Court said.
Justice Rabstan further said, “the petitioner was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before terminating his services”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel