SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the disengagement of a Special Police Officer (SPO) from the District SPO Cadre Bandipora, holding that the authorities violated the principles of natural justice by removing him over his alleged involvement in an NDPS case without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on September 22, allowed a petition filed by Suhail Ahmad Wani of Nadihal, Bandipora, and quashed Order No. 262 of 2022 dated November 3, 2022, through which his services had been disengaged with effect from the date of his arrest in FIR No. 175/2022 registered at Police Station Bandipora under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The court directed the authorities to reinstate Wani with all consequential benefits, while specifically excluding payment of emoluments for the period between his disengagement and restoration of his services. At the same time, the court left it open to the authorities to reconsider his case in connection with the NDPS FIR after issuing a show-cause notice and providing him an adequate opportunity of hearing.
“However, the Respondents shall be at liberty to revisit and re-consider the case of the Petitioner with reference to his alleged involvement in case FIR No. 175/2022 registered in Police Station, Bandipora relating to NDPS Act, after following due process of law by issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) and providing him adequate opportunity of hearing,” the court said.
Wani had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bandipora. He was represented by advocates Bhat Fayaz Ahmad and Nighat Amin, while the respondents—the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Director General of Police and SSP Bandipora—were represented by Deputy Advocate General T. A. Lone.
According to the judgment, Wani had been engaged as an SPO in the police department under Order No. 141 of 2009 dated August 21, 2009. He stated that he subsequently performed his duties in a volatile area and discharged his responsibilities with dedication and honesty.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated in FIR No. 175/2022 registered at Police Station Bandipora in connection with offences under the NDPS Act and that he had no connection with the allegations. His services were subsequently disengaged on November 3, 2022, following his arrest in the case. He sought quashing of the disengagement order.
The government opposed the petition, maintaining that Wani had been removed from the District SPO Cadre following his arrest in the NDPS case. The respondents also relied upon the terms of his engagement, submitting that his appointment was conditional and that his services could be disengaged when found unsatisfactory or when no longer required by the department.
The authorities argued that the petitioner had been found involved in a criminal case under the NDPS Act and therefore sought dismissal of the writ petition.
The High Court, however, found that the impugned order did not indicate that any notice had been issued to Wani before the decision was taken. The court also noted that the record produced by the respondents did not show that any inquiry had been conducted before his disengagement.
“From a plain reading of the Order impugned, it is clearly discernible that the Respondents, while disengaging the services of the Petitioner, have not referred to any notice having been issued to the Petitioner or any inquiry having been conducted by them on the subject before proceeding to inflict the heavy punishment of disengagement from service upon the Petitioner,” Justice Chowdhary observed.
The court said the requirement of a show-cause notice before an adverse order is passed is rooted in the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which requires that a person should not be condemned unheard.
“The right to hear would mean that party must know the cause he or she has to meet and must have a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case,” the court said.
In reaching its conclusion, the court referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court concerning natural justice and the right to a hearing before an adverse administrative decision is taken. It cited Canara Bank & Ors. v. Debasis Das & Ors., where the Supreme Court had held that notice is the first limb of the audi alteram partem principle and that a person must be given an adequate opportunity to respond before an adverse order is passed.
The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Dharampal Satampal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors., in which the apex court held that principles of natural justice extend to administrative decisions and are not dependent solely upon the existence of a statutory provision requiring a prior hearing.
The judgment further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, relying on the earlier ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, to note that even in cases involving suppression of information or alleged misconduct, an employer cannot arbitrarily discharge or terminate an employee.
Justice Chowdhary also took note of earlier judgments of the High Court involving the disengagement of SPOs, including Sharaz Hussain Shah v. State of J&K and Ors., Union Territory of J&K and Ors. v. Arsam Imtiyaz Malik, and UT of J&K and Ors. v. Shaheen Shah.
Particular reliance was placed on a recent Division Bench judgment in Union Territory of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, decided in 2026. The court noted that in cases where a stigma or allegation forms the basis for disengagement of an SPO, the person must be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to submit a reply or be heard before the authorities take a final decision.
The Division Bench had held that where an SPO is terminated or disengaged on account of alleged misconduct, “the opportunity of hearing shall be a minimum requirement” and that the doctrine of audi alteram partem must be followed.
Applying these principles to Wani’s case, the court concluded that the respondents had proceeded against him on the basis of a stigmatic accusation without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
“ The irrefutable conclusion that could be drawn is that the Respondents indeed have violated the basic fundamental principle of natural justice, while ordering disengagement of the services of the Petitioner as SPO, thereby condemning him unheard,” the court held.
The court said that although Wani was working as an SPO, he was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the “major punishment” of disengagement was imposed upon him. It consequently held that the impugned order could not be sustained as it had been passed in conflict with the rules of natural justice.
Accordingly, the court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the November 3, 2022 disengagement order and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate Wani with consequential benefits, subject to the exclusion of emoluments for the period during which he remained disengaged.
The court clarified that the police authorities were not barred from examining the allegations against him afresh. They may reconsider the matter concerning FIR No. 175/2022, but only after issuing a show-cause notice and giving him an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The writ petition and connected miscellaneous application were accordingly disposed of on September 22, 2026.
