Bal Singh vs State Of J&K And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1463 j&K

                                                                    Sr. No. 01

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                                SWP No. 2332/2017
                                                CM No.8023/2021

Bal Singh                                      .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                     Through:    Mr. N.D.Qazi, Advocate

                Vs

State of J&K and Ors.                                     ..... Respondent(s)

                     Through:    Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG

Coram: HON'BLE MR. MOHD AKRAM CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

1. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for issuance of a writ of

certiorari thereby quashing Order No.Estt/SPO/DIS/13/199-207 dated

01.07.2014 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Doda, qua the

petitioner, whereby he was disengaged from the SPO roll. Petitioner also

prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the

petitioner as SPO with all consequential benefits.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner being eligible and qualified was

engaged as SPO by the respondents and he worked to the entire satisfaction

of the department till 01.07.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

petitioner was disengaged from service vide order impugned dated

01.07.2014 in violation of the principles of natural justice because no

opportunity of being heard was ever provided to the petitioner before

issuing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioner had

been disengaged on the ground of his conviction recorded in File

No.70/Challan titled State of J&K v. Bal Singh by the Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Gandoh (Bhalessa) vide judgment dated 19.12.2013, which was

assailed by the petitioner before Sessions Court, Bhaderwah, by way of a

Criminal Appeal and the learned Sessions Judge Bhaderwah, vide

judgment dated 6th June, 2015 set aside the judgment of conviction and

acquitted the petitioner of the charges. Thereafter the petitioner submitted

an application/representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police

Doda, seeking reinstatement, which was duly recommended by the

concerned Member Legislative Assembly vide communication dated 24 th

June, 2015 but till date no decision has been taken on the representation of

the petitioner.

3. Objections have not been filed by the respondents. However, Mr.

Raman Sharma, learned AAG, appearing for the respondents, submits that

the petitioner was disengaged from the roll of SPOs because he was

reported to have been convicted in case titled State of J&K v. Bal Singh by

the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gandoh (Bhalessa) vide judgment

dated 19.12.2013. Learned counsel further submits that services of the

petitioner temporary, therefore, he has no right to seek re-engagement.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on a

judgment of this Court rendered in case titled Gh. Haider v. State of J&K

& ors. reported as 2014 (3) JKJ 461 would submit that the order impugned

is bad in the eyes of law, as no opportunity of being heard was ever

provided to the petitioner.

5. In the aforesaid judgment this Court was also dealing with a case

of SPO, whose services were terminated without conducting enquiry on the

ground that he has misused his official position. In paragraph no.9 of the

aforesaid judgment, this Court, held thus:-

"9. Section 19 of the Act envisages the powers of SPOs. Thus, the petitioner's services, even on need basis, cannot be terminated without affording him an opportunity of hearing, particularly, when there were specific allegations against him of misusing his official position and harassing one Din Mohammad. Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960 envisages that the delinquent official must be given an opportunity to meet the charges leveled against him; especially Sub-Rule (11)(2) thereof provides that the official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the proposed penalty. Thus, the petitioner was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before terminating his services. The action of respondents, therefore, is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice."

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is abundantly clear

that opportunity of hearing should have been granted before taking any

punitive action even against an SPO. Otherwise also, the petitioner in the

instant case stands acquitted of the charges on the basis of which he was

disengaged, therefore, there is no impediment in considering the

representation of the petitioner by the respondents for his re-instatement/re-

engagement.

7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by

permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation projecting his

grievance along with copy of complete paper book of the writ petition to

the respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the

representation, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same in light

of the judgment of this Court in Gh. Haider's case (supra) by passing a

speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter.

8. The writ petition along with connected application shall stand

disposed of

(MOHD AKRAM CHOWDHARY) JUDGE Jammu 15.11.2021 Vinod, Pvt. Secy

Whether the order is speaking :Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No