Stigmatic disengagement of an SPO without prior notice and hearing violates natural justice.

The petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) in 2004 and was subsequently appointed/absorbed as a Constable pursuant to Government Order No. 155-Home of 2022 dated 24 May 2022, issued following earlier litigation concerning the conversion of SPOs into Constables.

The Government Order recorded his date of birth as 4 March 1981, whereas the petitioner claimed his correct date of birth was 1 January 1973.

Police authorities corresponded with the Government seeking correction of the date of birth on the basis of a birth certificate and its verification by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education.

Instead of correcting the record, the Senior Superintendent of Police (Security), Kashmir, passed Order No. 312 of 2023 dated 21 December 2023, disengaging the petitioner from service on the allegation that he had produced a fake or fabricated document to suppress his actual age and secure engagement as an SPO.

No prior show-cause notice was issued and no inquiry was conducted before the disengagement order.

Whether the petitioner’s disengagement from service on the stigmatic allegation of furnishing a false or fabricated date-of-birth document, without a prior show-cause notice or inquiry, violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether the impugned disengagement order was liable to be quashed and the petitioner reinstated, while permitting the respondents to reconsider the allegations after following due process?

The Court applied the principles of audi alteram partem and procedural fairness, holding that an employee cannot be subjected to an adverse or stigmatic administrative order without notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

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

Under Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 8 SCC 519, natural justice applies even to administrative actions involving civil consequences, irrespective of whether a statute expressly provides for a hearing.

Relying on Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317, read with Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Court held that alleged suppression or furnishing of false information does not authorise arbitrary termination.

The Court further followed the Division Bench decisions in Sharaz Hussain Shah v. State of J&K, UT of J&K v. Arsam Imtiyaz Malik, UT of J&K v. Shaheen Shah, and UT of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, holding that, in cases involving stigmatic disengagement of SPOs, prior notice and an opportunity to submit a reply or be heard are mandatory.

The impugned order was founded on a serious and stigmatic allegation that the petitioner had fabricated his date-of-birth document to secure engagement despite being over-age.

Since the order adversely affected the petitioner’s service rights and reputation, the respondents were required to comply with audi alteram partem by issuing a clear show-cause notice and providing a reasonable opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancy.

The record disclosed neither a prior notice nor an inquiry before the petitioner was disengaged.

The Court therefore held that the respondents had condemned the petitioner unheard and had acted contrary to the minimum requirements of procedural fairness, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations.

The Court quashed Order No. 312 of 2023 dated 21 December 2023 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits, but without payment of emoluments for the period between disengagement and restoration.

The respondents were granted liberty to reconsider the allegation regarding the allegedly false date-of-birth certificate after following due process of law and providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The connected miscellaneous application was also disposed of.