SPO disengaged over ‘fake’ records, Jammu and Kashmir High Court orders reinstatement

The court added that the respondents proceeded against the petitioner, raising a seriou accusation, for which he was required to be heard in his defence.

SPOs denied constable conversion

The petitioner claimed to have been engaged as an SPO in the department in 2004. In 2007, the department started a process for the conversion of SPOs to constables on compassionate grounds. According to the petitioner, he, along with five other SPOs, was not considered for conversion to constables despite recommendations by the competent authority.

Justice M A Chowdhary observed that the petitioner was disengaged from service without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry.

In 2011, the petitioner and the five other SPOs approached the high court which directed the authorities in 2012 to consider their appointment and absorption as constable drivers. The direction was upheld by a division bench in 2013.

While facing contempt proceedings, the authorities in May 2022 absorbed him and nine other SPOs as constables. He later noticed that his date of birth had been incorrectly recorded as March 4, 1981, instead of January 1, 1973. Although he informed the police authorities about the error, the correction was not made.

Instead, the senior superintendent of police (security), Kashmir, passed an order on December 21, 2023, disengaging him from service. The authorities alleged that he had used fake and fabricated documents to conceal his actual age at the time of his SPO engagement and that he was over the prescribed age limit.

The petitioner challenged the disengagement before the high court, contending that the authorities had removed him without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry.

Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri argued that the petitioner wilfully produced fake and fabricated documents to suppress his actual age with an ill design.

No prior notice: Order

The court observed that the respondents disengaged the petitioner without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry prior to taking adverse action. The basic legal requirement that no person should be condemned unheard was completely ignored.

The court noted that terminating or disengaging an employee based on serious, stigmatic allegations (such as submitting fake/fabricated documents) requires providing the individual with notice and a reasonable opportunity to present their defence before any punishment is imposed.

“From the perusal of the relevant record made available before this court by the respondents, nothing is forthcoming as to fact that the respondents have issued any prior notice to the petitioner or conducted any enquiry before disengaging the services of the petitioner,” the order said.

It emphasised that the petitioner was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before inflicting the major punishment of disengagement from service.