The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh has clarified that a Special Police Officer (SPO) engaged under Section 18 of the Police Act or a government scheme, such as the Village Defence Group Scheme, does not hold a civil post and is not governed by statutory service rules. Consequently, an SPO is not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the procedural safeguards, such as a regular departmental enquiry, that are available to a regular member of the police force under the Police Rules before the disengagement of their services.
However, the principles of natural justice must be adhered to, which can be satisfied by holding a preliminary enquiry into allegations of misconduct and providing the SPO with an opportunity of being heard, such as through a representation or an appeal against the adverse order, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the central issue was whether a Village Defence Committee (VDC) Special Police Officer (SPO) is entitled to a regular departmental enquiry before the termination of their services. The Bench observed that while no formal charges were framed against the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, an enquiry was indeed conducted by the SHO, Police Station, Bhaderwah. During this enquiry, statements from VDC members, the Lamberdar, and the Sarpanch were recorded, all of whom stated that the petitioner remained in a drunken state, was absent from duty, and threatened the public with his service weapon.
The Bench reiterated that SPOs do not hold a post regulated by any statutory rules, and therefore, a formal departmental enquiry is not required before their disengagement. The Bench also interpreted Section 18 of the Police Act to mean that the engagement of SPOs is not permanent and they are not entitled to the same service protections as ordinary police officers who hold civil posts.
Further, the Bench noted that while a formal enquiry is not necessary, an SPO can, at best, claim a right to be heard to comply with the principles of natural justice. It concluded that this requirement was met in the present case, as a preliminary enquiry was held, and the petitioner was given the opportunity to file a representation/appeal against the disengagement order, wherein his pleas were considered and dealt with by the appellate authority.
Briefly, the petitioner, who was engaged as a Village Defence Committee (VDC) Special Police Officer (SPO) under a government scheme, was terminated by an order issued by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda. The petitioner alleged that he was disengaged because he refused to share his honorarium with other VDC members under coercion from the respondents. Conversely, the respondents contended that the petitioner’s disengagement was based on a written complaint from his co-villagers, who alleged that he frequently remained in an intoxicated state and threatened them with his service weapon. An enquiry conducted by the Additional SP, Bhaderwah, reportedly confirmed these allegations.
The petitioner initially challenged his disengagement in a petition, which was disposed of with a direction to file an appeal before the competent authority. His subsequent appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner challenged both the disengagement and appellate orders, arguing that he was not given an opportunity to be heard and that the procedure under the Police Rules was not followed.
Appearances:
Advocate Mazher Ali Khan, for the Petitioner
Senior AAG Monika Kohli and Advocate Chetna Manhas, for the Respondent
