Calcutta High Court refuses to reinstate 7 special cops in terror-prone zones over ‘performance failure’

Noting that the SPO’s role is vital for maintaining public safety and also for maintaining the safety of the railway tracks, the order added that the petitioners have failed to deliver the work that they were supposed to perform, and there is no reason to engage persons who do not satisfy and/or perform the duty for which they have been engaged.

Dismissal over unsatisfactory performance

The seven petitioners were deployed as Special Police Officers (SPOs) by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Purulia, in 2012. They were required to guard trains throughout the day and night, especially in Left-Wing Extremist (LWE) affected areas.

They filed the plea in September 2024, alleging that they were arbitrarily disengaged from service with effect from August 1, 2023. A representation was addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Bagmundi Police Station on June 19, 2024, with a request to permit them to join service.

The instant petition was filed as there was no response from the end of the respondent authority. The petitioners sought the direction to the respondent authorities to permit them to join their respective duties and to regularise them in service.

Petitioner’s case

It has been submitted that 30 SPOs were appointed on the same day. All of them were demobilised, but thereafter the authority permitted 19 of them to rejoin duty, but the remaining 11 were not allowed to join.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Rudranil De and Soumo Charan submitted that the reason for not permitting the petitioners to resume duty had never been disclosed.

They argued that the state cannot discriminate between two similarly circumstanced persons. If the authority permitted 19 SPOs to rejoin duty, the authority ought to have permitted the remaining 11 to rejoin on the same date.

Performance report, dismissal

According to the state, their deployment was purely contractual for a specific purpose to deal with the situation necessitated at the material point in time.

A report was submitted by the sub-divisional police officer, Jhalda, Purulia, before the superintendent of police, Purulia, against 36 SPOs deployed under the Bagmundi and Joypur police stations. The said SPOs were found to be indisciplined, reluctant, and irregular in their duties.

They were reluctant to perform their assigned task and failed to collect and provide any information about LWE activities, which was their primary duty. Relying on the aforesaid report of the sub-divisional police officer, Jhalda, the superintendent of police, Purulia, disengaged the 36 SPOs from August 2023.

After disengagement, the activities of the said SPOs were reviewed. On review, it was found that only 20 of them may be re-engaged upon caution. The rest were found to be extremely casual, and lacked the required potential to collect information for the prevention of subversive activities along the railway track.

Their reluctant attitude, negligent conduct, and irregular presence at the assigned duty do not suit the performance for which they have been deployed. The petitioners fall within the said 20 SPOs who have been demobilised because of unsatisfactory performance, the state added.

‘If unfit, no question of regularisation’

The court emphasised that the SPOs, along with the subject police station, were primarily required to collect information and inputs about the terrorist activities on railway tracks.

“The authority demobilised the petitioners as they were unable to provide the relevant inputs, and they were found to be casual and irregular in their duties. Even after demobilisation of their service, the authorities reviewed the performance of the demobilised SPOs and have re-appointed several of them who, according to the authority, were in a position to serve the purpose for which they were engaged,” the court observed.

By accepting the state’s argument, the court said, even on review of the performance of the petitioners, the respondents were not satisfied to re-engage them, and that is why there is no question of regularising any person who is unfit for the job for which he has been engaged.

It added that the petitioners cannot expect the authority to keep them in the role of the state without providing any service, and it is only the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioners and their indisciplined and casual attitude during work that led to their demobilisation, which cannot be said to violate Article 14 of the Constitution.