An SPO cannot be stigmatically disengaged without notice and opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) in 2009 and served in the District SPO Cadre, Bandipora.

He was subsequently arrested in connection with FIR No. 175/2022 registered at Police Station Bandipora for alleged offences under Sections 8/22/29 of the NDPS Act.

On that basis, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bandipora, issued Order No. 262 of 2022 dated 3 November 2022, disengaging him from the SPO rolls with effect from the date of his arrest.

The respondents contended that his engagement was conditional and could be discontinued where his services were unsatisfactory or no longer required, and that his involvement in an NDPS case justified the disengagement.

The impugned order was passed without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry.

Whether the disengagement of the petitioner from SPO service on the basis of his alleged involvement in an NDPS case, without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether an SPO could be disengaged on the basis of a stigmatic allegation or arrest without following a fair procedure?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits after the impugned disengagement order was found legally unsustainable?

The Court applied the audi alteram partem principle, under which no person may be condemned unheard and an adverse administrative order carrying civil or stigmatic consequences must ordinarily be preceded by a precise notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Relying on Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557, the Court held that notice is the first limb of natural justice and must adequately inform the affected person of the case to be met.

Under Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 8 SCC 519, the principles of natural justice, including fair hearing and reasoned decision-making, apply even to administrative actions affecting civil rights, irrespective of whether a statute expressly provides for a hearing.

The Court also relied on Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317, read with Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, for the proposition that alleged suppression, false information, or misconduct does not authorise arbitrary termination.

The Court further followed recent Division Bench decisions holding that, in cases involving stigmatic disengagement of SPOs, a prior notice and reasonable opportunity to submit a reply or be heard are the minimum safeguards, even though Sections 18 and 19 of the Police Act, 1983 and Article 311 of the Constitution do not govern the matter in the same manner as regular civil service disciplinary proceedings.

The Court found that the impugned order was not merely a simpliciter discontinuance under the petitioner’s conditional engagement; it was founded on the stigmatic allegation that he was involved in an NDPS case and had been arrested.

Since the stated basis of disengagement involved alleged misconduct and adversely affected the petitioner’s service and reputation, the respondents were required to issue a show-cause notice and provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing before taking action.

The record disclosed neither prior notice nor any inquiry.

The contractual or conditional nature of the SPO engagement could not dispense with the minimum requirements of procedural fairness where the disengagement was based on a stigmatic accusation.

The Court therefore held that the order was passed in direct violation of the principles of natural justice and could not be sustained.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits, but without payment of emoluments for the period between disengagement and restoration.

The respondents were, however, granted liberty to reconsider the petitioner’s alleged involvement in FIR No. 175/2022 after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

The connected miscellaneous application was also disposed of.