Ut Of J&K Through Principal vs Shahen Shah S/O Sh. Thoru Ram
2025 Latest Caselaw 694 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Ut Of J&K Through Principal vs Shahen Shah S/O Sh. Thoru Ram on 6 August, 2025

Author: Rajnesh Oswal

Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

                                                                      2025:JKLHC-JMU:2200-DB




                                                                   Sr. No.32


     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                  AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case No: LPA No. 152/2025
         in [WP(C) No. 1457/2022],
         CM No. 4835/2025
         CM No.4836/2025

     1. UT of J&K through Principal
        Secretary to Govt.
        Home Department, J&K, Jammu

     2. Director General of Police, J&K,
        Jammu.
     3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
        Jammu

                        .....Appellant(s)....


                       Through: Ms. Monika Koli, Sr.AAG.

                  Vs


        Shahen Shah S/o Sh. Thoru Ram,
        R/O Lohari Chak, Tehsil and
        District Jammu.

                       ..... Respondent(s)


                       Through: None.

Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                                 JUDGMENT

06.08.2025

1. Applicants-appellants have filed an application bearing CM No.

4835/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 248 days in filing the

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2200-DB

Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the

learned writ Court in WP(C) No. 1457/2022 whereby the writ petition

preferred by the respondent-petitioner (SPO) was allowed and order

dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Jammu in respect of disengagement of the respondent-writ petitioner

was set aside.

2. We have gone through the application. Sufficient cause has been

shown for condoning the delay.

3. Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in the application coupled with

the submissions made at the Bar, this application is allowed. The delay

in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

4. Application CM No.4835/2025 is disposed of.

5. Main appeal is taken on board.

LPA No.152/2025, CM No. 4836/2025

6. The facts which emerge from the writ record are that respondent-writ

petitioner by way of writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1457/2022

challenged Order No.1230 of 2019 dated 20.09.2019 passed by

respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, before the

Writ Court, whereby he was disengaged from the rolls of Special

Police Officer (SPO) of District Police, Jammu, on the ground that he

remained absent from duty w.e.f. 19.03.2019 and was also involved in

case FIR No. 113/2019 under Sections 376/342 RPC Police Station,

Domana. It is also stated in the order that such act of the respondent-

petitioner (SPO) was not only a grave misconduct, but, had brought

bad name/image to the Police Organization.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2200-DB

7. The learned writ Court after hearing the parties vide order dated

07.06.2024 allowed the writ petition of the respondent-writ petitioner

by setting aside Order No.1230 of 2019 dated 20.09.2019 and the

respondent-writ petitioner was restored as SPO in Jammu & Kashmir

Police with all consequential benefits excluding the payment of

emoluments for the period with effect from the date of his

disengagement till the date of restoration of his service as Special

Police Officer (SPO). Learned writ Court held that the appellants-

respondents were required to provide an opportunity of being heard to

the respondent-writ petitioner before passing the order dated

20.09.2019, but, without providing opportunity of hearing, the

respondent-writ petitioner has been dismissed.

8. Being aggrieved of order of learned writ Court dated 07.06.2024, the

appellants-writ respondents have filed instant intra court appeal on the

grounds that the SPOs are appointed on contractual and temporary

basis and they do not hold any permanent post in the police

department. Since SPOs are not permanent employees, the authorities

are not required to conduct a formal inquiry before disengaging them.

The engagement of SPOs is purely at the discretion of the police

department. If the department finds that an SPO is not suitable for

duty, it has the right to remove him/her without any justification. It is

further contended by the appellants-writ respondents that, apart from

the criminal case, the respondent-writ petitioner was removed because

he remained absent from duty without permission since 19.03.2019

and his unauthorised absence is itself a valid ground for termination,

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2200-DB

even for regular government employees. It is also contended that the

respondent-writ petitioner was accused in FIR No.113/2019 under

Section 376 and Section 342 RPC, where there were serious criminal

charges and involvement in such a case severely impacts the

reputation of the police force. Thus, it is contended that the learned

writ Court has ignored this key fact while granting reinstatement of the

respondent-writ petitioner.

9. In the present case, respondent-writ petitioner has put a challenge in

the writ petition to the order dated 20.09.2019 on the ground that the

same is in contravention of the rules of natural justice, having been

issued without holding a departmental enquiry or giving an

opportunity of being heard to the respondent-writ petitioner to explain

his position and vindicate his honour, but, the sole basis upon which

the order impugned dated 20.09.2019 has been issued against the

respondent-writ petitioner by the SSP, Jammu, was that he was

involved in case FIR No.113/2019 registered with Police Station

Domana for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

376/342 RPC. In the said FIR, the respondent- writ petitioner was

acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated

27.12.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jammu.

On being acquitted, the respondent-writ petitioner approached the

appellants-writ respondents and submitted representation dated

19.02.2022, however, no action was taken on his representation.

Before passing the order dated 20.09.2019 by which the respondent-

writ petitioner was disengaged, the appellants-writ respondents were

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2200-DB

required to provide an opportunity of being heard to the respondent-

writ petitioner, so as to defend his position, but, in the instant case,

appellants- writ respondents without affording any opportunity of

being heard to the respondent-writ petitioner have

terminated/disengaged the respondent-writ petitioner from the service

which is palpably bad in the eyes of law as the order impugned being

stigmatic in nature has been passed in violation of the principles of

natural justice.

10. The judgment dated 05.06.2014 relied upon by Mrs. Monika Kohli,

learned Sr. AAG in case titled State of J&K and others Vs.

Mohammad Iqbal Mallah passed in LPA No. 153 of 2012 is

distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the present case. In the

present case, respondent-petitioner was disengaged on the ground that

he was involved in serious criminal case, but, later on he was acquitted

of the charges levelled against him by the Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court, Jammu and also on being remained absent from duties.

11. It is settled law that even where appointment is contractual and

contractual employee is to be disengaged on account of some

misconduct or adverse performance, he/she is required to be heard

before disengaging him/her from services. In this context, it would be

appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in case titled U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

and others Vs. Brijesh Kumar and another, reported in 2024 INSC

638. The para 19 is relevant, which is extracted here as under :-

"19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged

2025:JKLHC-JMU:2200-DB

but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice."(Emphasis added).

12. After giving our thoughtful consideration and deep contemplation to

the issues agitated in the intra court appeal, we arrive at an inescapable

conclusion that the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, being

reasoned one, deserves no interference from us, as the same cannot be

found fault with, while viewing from any angle. The learned Single

Judge, in our view, has rightly put the controversy to quietus. The

judgment of learned Single Judge is, thus, upheld.

13. Viewed thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the

same is dismissed along with connected CM(s). However, dismissal

of this appeal shall not come in the way of the appellants-writ

respondents to proceed against the respondent-writ petitioner if they

intend to do so.

                                   (RAJNESH OSWAL)                        (ARUN PALLI)
                                        JUDGE                             CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
06.08.2025
Madan Verma-Secy
                                Whether the order is speaking:     Yes.
                                Whether the order is reportable:   No.