‘Only God can save country’ if cops skip duty over threats: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the petitioner, engaged as an SPO, was not entitled to any right of hearing or enquiry, because of the nature of his engagement.

Militant threat, disengagement

The petitioner was appointed as a special police officer (SPO) in 2012. He claimed that in 2015, he was on medical leave when there was turmoil and he received threats to his life from militants. He said he could not return to his duty because of the threats and was later not allowed to rejoin when he reported back to his posting.

When his requests for reinstatement failed, he moved the high court. In 2025, the court directed the director general of police (DGP), Jammu and Kashmir, to consider his case and pass a speaking order. When the police chief rejected his plea to rejoin service, he approached the high court.

The petitioner’s main argument was that his services were terminated without any inquiry, formal charge or an opportunity to be heard. He also alleged the violation of Articles 16 (equality of opportunity in government employment), 21 (protection of life and liberty) and 311 (dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities) of the Constitution and Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, which states that no police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank until given an opportunity to show cause.

‘No right to hearing’

The high court rejected the argument and held that the petitioner, engaged as an SPO, was not entitled to any right of hearing or inquiry because of the nature of his duties.

Story continues below this ad

“The contention of the petitioner that an SPO is entitled to same powers, privileges and protections as are available to ordinary officers of police in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Police Act, appears to be without any merit for the reasons that SPOs do not hold any civil posts regulated by any Statutory rules,” the court said.

The judge said even if the petitioner were assumed to have a right to a hearing, his admitted failure to attend duty because of militant threats was sufficient justification for dispensing with his services. “Granting an opportunity to present his case prior to his disengagement from service would have been an empty formality,” the court said, and dismissed the petition.