Special Police Officers do not hold civil posts and are not entitled to formal departmental enquiry.

The petitioner was engaged as a Village Defence Committee Special Police Officer (VDC SPO) under Government Order No. 293 of 1995.

On June 23, 2015, respondent No. 4 issued an order disengaging the petitioner’s services on allegations that he remained intoxicated, threatened co-villagers with his service weapon, and refused to share his honorarium with other VDC members.

An enquiry conducted by the Additional SP, Bhaderwah, supported these allegations.

The petitioner previously challenged this via SWP No. 2060/2015, where the Court directed him to file an appeal.

His appeal was subsequently rejected by respondent No. 3 via order dated March 27, 2018.

The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging both the disengagement and the appellate orders, seeking reinstatement and back wages.

The court primarily applied Section 18 of the Police Act, which governs the appointment of SPOs for specific contingencies rather than permanent service.

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in State of J&K v. Mohammad Iqbal Mallah (LPA No. 153/2012), which established that SPOs do not hold "civil posts" and are not governed by statutory recruitment rules, thus a formal departmental enquiry is not mandatory for disengagement.

The court also referenced State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi (2007) and Bilal Ahmed Sheikh v. State of J&K (2021) to reiterate that SPOs are sui generis appointees who lack the protections afforded to regular police officers under Article 309 or 311 of the Constitution of India.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was an SPO engaged under a specific scheme (Village Defence Group Scheme), his employment was not of a permanent nature and did not constitute a civil post.

Consequently, Rule 337 of the Police Rules and Article 311 protections were inapplicable.

The Court observed that while a formal departmental enquiry (including cross-examination) was not required, the respondents did conduct a preliminary enquiry where statements from the Sarpanch and VDC members confirmed the petitioner’s misconduct, including public intoxication and threats with a service weapon.

The Court found that the "principles of natural justice" were sufficiently met because the petitioner was given the opportunity to file a detailed representation/appeal, which was duly considered by the competent authority before the final rejection.

The Court further noted that the petitioner’s refusal to deposit arms until an FIR was lodged in 2019 reinforced the gravity of his conduct.

The High Court held that the disengagement was justified based on the findings of the preliminary enquiry regarding the petitioner's conduct and that the opportunity to appeal satisfied the requirements of natural justice.

The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Case dismissed on March 12, 2026.