Nature of Police Service Cannot Be Equated With Any Other Service, Convicted Person Not Fit To Serve In Police: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently observed that the nature of service of a police official cannot be equated with the nature of any other service and a person who has been convicted of a criminal charge is definitely not fit to serve as police official/officer. The observations were made by Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently observed that the nature of service of a police official cannot be equated with the nature of any other service and a person who has been convicted of a criminal charge is definitely not fit to serve as police official/officer.
The observations were made by Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had challenged an order passed by respondent UT of J&K, whereby the petitioner had been disengaged from the roll of Special Police Officers (SPOs) of the District Ramban.
Apart from challenging the disengagement order the petitioner also prayed for a writ of mandamus seeking directions for his appointment as constable with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. The petitioner further sought a writ of prohibition thereby asking the respondents not to take note of the judgment dated 6th June, 2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool.
The petitioner challenged the order of disengagement mainly on the ground that in terms of Section 19 of the J&K Police Act, under which the petitioner was engaged as SPO, enjoys same powers, privileges and protection as are being enjoyed by ordinary officers of the police. On this ground, it was urged that without holding an enquiry and without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, he could not have been discharged from service.
Secondly the petitioner argued that because co-accused person with him were re-instated in their respective services, as such, he should also be re-instated.
It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the Petitioner and co-accused were extended benefit of probation, upon conviction by the Magistrate.
Adjudicating upon the matter, Justice Dhar observed that an SPO engaged under Section 18 of the J&K Police Act is not entitled to right of any hearing or enquiry, keeping in view the nature of his engagement and hence it was not incumbent upon the respondents to hold an enquiry or give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before terminating his services as SPO.
In order to buttress the said position of law, the bench placed firm reliance on the Division bench judgement of J&K&L High Court in State of J&K v. Mohammad Iqal Mallah (LPA No.153 of 2012 decided on 05.06.2014).
Dealing with the second contention of the petitioner the bench observed,
"Even otherwise, once the petitioner was convicted of a criminal charge, even though, he was granted benefit of probation, it was open to the respondents to refuse to take him back in service, because the service of police department is not like service of any other department. A person, who has been convicted of a criminal charge is definitely not fit to serve as police official/officer not even as an SPO".
Elaborating further Justice Dhar noted that the contention of the petitioner that just because co-accused after passing of the judgment by the criminal Court were re-instated in their respective services and as such, he should also be re-instated, cannot be accepted for the nature of service of a police official cannot be equated with the nature of any other service. Thus, there has been no discrimination against the petitioner, it underscored.
Accordingly the bench found the petition without any merit and dismissed the same.
Case Title : Bashir Ahmed Vs UT of J&K
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 174