SPOs Engaged Under VDC Scheme Not Entitled To Article 311 Protection Or Regular Departmental Enquiry Before Disengagement: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The Court held that Special Police Officers engaged under Section 18 of the Police Act or under the Village Defence Committee Scheme do not hold civil posts and therefore cannot claim the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution or insist on a regular departmental enquiry before disengagement.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a Special Police Officer (SPO) engaged under the Village Defence Committee (VDC) Scheme cannot claim a right to a regular departmental enquiry before disengagement.
The Court observed that SPOs are engaged for specific contingencies and do not hold civil posts under the State.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against his disengagement as a VDC Special Police Officer and seeking reinstatement along with back wages.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while examining the legal status of Special Police Officers, observed: “From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it is clear that a Special Police Officer engaged in terms of Section 18 of the Police Act or under the Scheme formulated in terms of Government Order No. 293 of 1995 dated 30.09.1995 cannot claim right to be subjected to regular departmental enquiry before disengagement of his services.”
Advocate Mazher Ali Khan appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, along with Advocate Chetna Manhas, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner had been engaged as a Special Police Officer under the Village Defence Committee Scheme introduced through Government Order No. 293 of 1995 dated 30 September 1995.
The scheme provided for the constitution of Village Defence Groups consisting of armed civilian volunteers to assist in maintaining security in vulnerable villages. Each group was headed by a person appointed as a Special Police Officer and paid an honorarium.
The petitioner’s services as VDC SPO were disengaged by order dated 23 June 2015 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda. The order cited complaints from villagers alleging that the petitioner remained intoxicated, threatened residents with his service weapon and failed to cooperate with other members of the Village Defence Committee.
The petitioner challenged the disengagement before the High Court in an earlier writ petition. The Court permitted him to file an appeal before the competent authority, following which his appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police through an order dated 27 March 2018.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court again, contending that his disengagement had been ordered without serving a charge sheet or conducting a regular departmental enquiry, thereby violating principles of natural justice and provisions of the Police Rules.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the nature of the appointment of Special Police Officers under Section 18 of the Police Act and the Village Defence Committee Scheme.
Referring to the Division Bench decision in State of J&K v. Mohammad Iqbal Mallah (2014), the Court noted that SPOs are not appointed to posts regulated by statutory service rules and therefore do not hold civil posts under the State.
The Division Bench, in its decision, had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi (2007), which held that persons engaged under schemes without statutory service rules governing their appointment cannot be treated as holders of civil posts.
The Court, in that context, observed that “a Special Police Officer does not hold a civil post so as to entitle him to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the provisions contained in Police Rules, which is available to a regular member of police force holding a civil post.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that while SPOs cannot insist upon a full-fledged departmental enquiry, they are still entitled to limited procedural safeguards. The Court stated that a Special Police Officer may claim only a basic right of hearing before an adverse order is passed to satisfy the requirements of the principles of natural justice.
Examining the facts of the case, the Court noted that the authorities had conducted a preliminary enquiry in which statements of the Village Defence Committee members, Sarpanch and Lambardar were recorded. The enquiry report indicated that the petitioner remained intoxicated, threatened villagers with his weapon and failed to cooperate with the VDC members.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had been allowed to submit a representation against the disengagement order, and the same had been considered and rejected by the appellate authority.
In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing had been adequately satisfied.
Conclusion
Finding that a preliminary enquiry had been conducted and the petitioner had been allowed to submit his representation, the Court concluded that the principles of natural justice had been complied with.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Kirpal Singh v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors
