KIRPAL SINGH vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH SECRETARY HOME DEPTT AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 440/2021
CM No. 2147/2021



Reserved on: 03.03.2026
Pronounced on : 12.03.2026

Uploaded on : 12.03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full

Kirpal Singh
….Petitioners

Through:- Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate.

V/s


UT of J&K & ors
…..Respondents

Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate.




\
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT



01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present
petition, has challenged Order No. Estt/Appeal/2018/1923-25
dated 27.03.2018 passed by respondent No. 3 by virtue of
which appeal of the petitioner against order of his
disengagement has been dismissed. Challenge has also been
thrown to order No. GB/VDC/Dis-Eng/15/20671-76 dated
23.06.2015 by virtue of which services of the petitioner as
VDC SPO have been dispensed with. The petitioner has also
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 1 of 11

sought a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him as
VDC SPO along with back wages.
02. As per case of the petitioner, he was engaged as
VDC SPO in pursuance to scheme launched by the
Government vide Order No. 293 of 1995 dated 30.09.1995. It
has been submitted that under the coercion of the
respondents, the petitioner was made to share the honorarium
that he was receiving with other members of Village Defence
Committee (VDC) but when he refused to do so, respondent
No. 4, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.06.2015 (supra),
disengaged him from the roll of VDC.
03. The petitioner is stated to have challenged the
aforesaid order by virtue of writ petition bearing SWP No.
2060/2015. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by
this Court in terms of order dated 27.11.2017 whereby the
petitioner was given a liberty to prefer appeal/representation
against the order of his disengagement before DIG, Doda-
Bhaderwah or any other competent authority. Further a
direction was issued to the said authority to dispose of the
appeal/representation within four to six weeks. Accordingly,
the petitioner filed the appeal/representation before
respondent No. 3. However, the same was not decided by the
said respondent within the stipulated time as a result whereof,
the petitioner had to file a contempt petition before this Court.
During pendency of the contempt petition, respondent No. 3
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 2 of 11

passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 (supra) whereby
appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.
04. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders
on the grounds that he has not been given an opportunity of
being heard before issuing the disengagement order or before
rejecting his appeal against the said order. It has been further
contended that punishment of disengagement imposed upon
the petitioner is harsh in the given circumstances particularly
when his role as VDC SPO has been appreciated by his
superiors. It has been further contended that the respondents
have not adhered to Rule 337 of the Police Rules while
disengaging his services. It is being contended that no
chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner and no
regular enquiry into the charges has been held by the
respondents before issuing the impugned order. It has also
been contended that the petitioner was engaged as VDC SPO
by the Government and, therefore, it was not open to
respondent No. 4 to disengage his services.
05. The respondents have contested the writ petition by
filing reply thereto. In their reply, it has been submitted that
the petitioner was never harassed or pressurized to share his
honorarium with his other VDC members. According to the
respondents, the services of the petitioner were disengaged on
the basis of written complaint of the public of his native village
as he used to annoy his co-villagers and was threatening to kill
them with his service weapon. It has been submitted that as
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 3 of 11

per the complaint lodged by the villagers, the petitioner used to
remain in an intoxicated state and under the influence of
liquor, he used to speak ill about others and would threaten to
kill them. It has been submitted that the villagers got fed up
with the misdeeds of the petitioner and sought his
disengagement/disarmament.
06. According to the respondents, an enquiry was
conducted by Additional SP, Bhaderwah regarding the
allegations leveled against the petitioner by his co-villagers and
it was established that the petitioner always remained in
intoxicated state under the influence of alcohol and he was
threatening general public with his service weapon. It has been
submitted that the petitioner in pursuance to Government
Order No. 293 of 1995 came to be appointed as VDC SPO to
ensure the security and safety of his co-villagers but he started
threatening the co-villagers with his service weapon. It has
been submitted that in the previous past, VDC SPOs, out of
their free will, used to share their honorarium with other
members of the VDC. The respondents have, however, denied
that there was any pressure exerted by them upon the
petitioner to share the monthly honorarium amongst other
VDC members. It has been emphatically stated by the
respondents that the petitioner came to be disengaged on the
basis of the complaint of local people and not for any other
reason.
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 4 of 11

07. The respondents have submitted that despite
disengagement of the petitioner, he refused to deposit the arms
and ammunition issued to him as a result whereof FIR No.
109/2019 for offences under Section 7/25 Arms Act came to
be registered against him with Police Station, Bhaderwah for
possession of illegal arms/ammunition. The case was
challaned before the competent court and it was only after
hectic efforts of the police that the petitioner was disarmed and
the arms and ammunition were deposited with Police Station,
Bhaderwah in the year 2019.
08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including the relevant record
produced by the respondents.

09. Vide Government Order No. Home-293 of 1995
dated 30.09.1995, sanction was accorded to creation of Village
Defence Groups as per the Scheme called “Village Defence
Group Scheme”. This Scheme provided for setting up of a
group of 10 to 15 armed civilians in each village comprising of
certain categories of persons. The members of this group were
to work on voluntary basis and each group was to be headed
by a retired officer of the Army/CRPF/State Police, who was to
be issued a higher category of weapon and was also to be
appointed and given powers of Special Police Officer (SPO) with
honorarium initially @ Rs. 1500 per month. The SPOs were to
function under the overall supervision of respective Tehsildars
and SHOs and instructions in this behalf were to be issued by
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 5 of 11

the respective District Magistrates and Superintendents of
Police. As per the Scheme, the volunteers and the number of
weapons to be allotted in a particular village had to be
determined by the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent
of Police concerned.
10. It seems that the petitioner, pursuant to the
aforesaid scheme, came to be appointed as VDC SPO. His
services came to be disengaged in terms of impugned order
dated 23.06.2015 issued by Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Doda. The reasons for his disengagement, as are discernible
from the said order, are that he has not shared honorarium
with the other members of the VDC and that he remains in
drunken condition day and night. Another reason for his
disengagement as given in the order of disengagement is that
the petitioner is threatening the members of VDC as well as
panchayat members and he is not cooperating with the
members of VDC.
11. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the
petitioner was given a liberty to file an appeal/representation
against the aforesaid order and he filed an
appeal/representation against the said order, which came to
be rejected vide impugned order dated 27.03.2018. In the
appeal, the petitioner raised the ground that he has not been
given an opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of
disengagement against him and that he could not have been
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 6 of 11

disengaged for not sharing honorarium with other members of
the VDC.
12. The record, however, shows that SHO, Police
Station, Bhaderwah has conducted a detailed enquiry into the
allegations leveled against the petitioner. As per the record,
the statements of VDC members of village Dhumunda as also
the statements of Lamberdar and Sarpanch have been
recorded. All of them have stated in one voice that the
petitioner remains in drunken state, absent from duty and
does not cooperate with the other members of the VDC. They
have also stated that the petitioner has refused to share the
honorarium to other members of VDC. They have further
stated that the petitioner is threatening general public at large
under the cover of his service weapon.
13. The petitioner, however, has not been afforded an
opportunity of cross-examining these witnesses and no formal
charges have been framed against him. The question that
arises for determination is as to whether having regard to the
nature of employment of the petitioner, he is entitled to be
subjected to regular departmental enquiry before dispensing
with his services.
14. The aforesaid issue has been conclusively
determined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
“ State of J&K and Ors Vs. Mohammad Iqbal Mallah [LPA
No. 153 of 2012 decided on 05.06.2014. Paras 4 and 5 of
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 7 of 11

the said judgment are relevant to the context and the same are
reproduced as under:
“4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of
the considered view that once the petitioner- respondent
was not holding any post regulated by any statutory rules,
then it is not possible to hold that a departmental enquiry
was required to be held although the SPOs might be
discharging significant duties at their respective places. In
somewhat similar circumstances the issue was raised
before Honble the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Ameerbi , (2007) 11 SCC 681. Considering
the judgment rendered in the case of State of Assam v.
Kanak Chandra Dutta , AIR 1967 SC, 884, their Lordships
of Hon’ble the Supreme Court held in para 29 as under:-
Appointments made under a scheme and
recruitment process being carried out through a
committee, in our opinion, would not render the
incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our
attention has not been drawn to any rule or
regulation governing the mode of their recruitment.
Some statements in this behalf have been made by
the interveners but for the reasons stated
hereinbefore, we cannot enter thereinto. A
distinction must be made about a post created by
the Central Government or the State Governments
in exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162
of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-`-
vis cases of this nature who are sui generis. Terms
and conditions of services of an employee may be
referable to acts of appropriate legislature. The
matter may also come within the purview of Article
309 of the Constitution of India as proviso
appended thereto confers power upon the President
or the Governor of a State or other authority, who
may be delegated with such power, to make rules
during the interregnum.
5. In the present case the petitioner- respondent was
working as SPO at an honorarium of Rs. 3000/- per
month. He decided to absent himself from duty and his
services were disengaged vide order dated 01.07.2011
when he had rendered less than three years service. He
has no right to any post. There was no requirement of law
to hold an enquiry for complying with the rules of
principles of natural justice as he was not a holder of a
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 8 of 11

post, much less a civil post. Therefore, the appeal deserves
to be accepted and the judgment of the learned Single
Judge is liable to be set aside.”
15. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Division
Bench, this Court in the case of “ Bilal Ahmed Sheikh Vs.
State of J&K & ors [SWP No. 2548/2017 decided on
17.09.2021] had an occasion to deal with a similar issue.
This Court, after noticing the provisions contained in Section
18 of the Police Act, which deals with engagement of Special
Police Officers and also Section 19 of the Act, which deals with
special power of police officers, observed as under:
9) From a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 18 of
the Police Act, it is revealed that SPOs are appointed by Police
Officers above a particular rank for specific purposes when
the police force ordinarily employed for preserving the peace is
not sufficient for its preservation and for the protection of the
inhabitants. The provision makes it clear that residents of
neighbourhood can be appointed as SPOs for dealing with
specific contingencies. Thus, engagement of SPOs is not of a
permanent nature but it is only to take care of a particular
contingency. It is in this context that the provisions contained
in Section 19 of the Act are required to be interpreted. By
doing so, it becomes axiomatic that SPOs enjoy same powers,
privileges and protections as do the ordinary officers in the
matter of crowd control, prevention of unlawful assemblies or
contingencies of like nature. The said provision cannot be
interpreted in a manner so as to extend even the powers,
privileges and protections relating to service conditions of an
ordinary police officer to the SPOs, who, admittedly, do not
hold any civil posts regulated by any Statutory rules.
Therefore, they are not entitled to any protection as afforded to
ordinary police officers under Police Rules or Civil Service
Regulations. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of J&K v.
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 9 of 11

Mohammad Iqal Mallah (LPA No.153 of 2012 decided on
05.06.2014).

16. 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. At best, a Special
Police Officer can claim a right of hearing before any adverse
order is issued against him so as to comply with the principles
of natural justice. 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.
17. Turning to the facts of the present case, the
respondents have not disengaged the services of the petitioner
without holding an enquiry. The record suggests that an
enquiry with regard to the conduct of the petitioner has been
held by the SHO under the directions of the concerned
Superintendent of police. After recording the statements of
witnesses during the preliminary enquiry, it has been found
that the petitioner usually remained in drunken condition and
threatened the people with his service weapon. It has also been
found that the petitioner does not share honorarium with
other members of VDC. The same may not form a valid ground
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 10 of 11

for his disengagement but because other allegations relating to
his conduct vis-à-vis public at large, have also been found
established against him during the preliminary enquiry,
therefore, the respondents were justified in passing the
impugned orders.
18. In view of the above circumstances, it can safely be
stated that the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner has been complied with by the respondents by
holding a preliminary enquiry and by permitting him to file a
representation against the order of disengagement wherein he
has raised whatever pleas were available to him, whereafter
the same have been dealt with by respondent No. 3 while
issuing the impugned order dated 27.03.2018.

19. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not
find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly
dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
12.03.2026
Naresh/Secy.


Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
Naresh Kumar
2026.02.25 03:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
WP(C) No. 440/2021 Page 11 of 11