SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the disengagement of a Special Police Officer (SPO) from Security Kashmir, holding that the authorities violated the principles of natural justice by removing him over allegations of furnishing a fake date-of-birth certificate without first issuing him a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on September 22, 2026, directed the authorities to reinstate Mohammad Amin Rather, a resident of Bonigam in Kulgam district, with all consequential benefits, while excluding payment of emoluments for the period between his disengagement and restoration of service.
The court, however, permitted the authorities to reconsider the allegations against Rather after following due process of law 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 the alleged production of fake DoB certificate, after following due process of law and providing him adequate opportunity of hearing as per Rules,” the court directed.
Rather had challenged Order No. 312 of 2023 dated December 21, 2023, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (Security), Kashmir, through which his services as an SPO were disengaged with immediate effect. He was also directed to deposit all government articles issued to him with the Security Kashmir stores.
He was represented before the court by advocate Shuja-ul-Haq Tantray, while the respondents—the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Director General of Police, Additional Director General of Police (Security) and SSP (Security), Kashmir—were represented by assisting counsel Maha Majeed for Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri.
According to the petition, Rather had been engaged as an SPO in 2004. In 2007, the authorities initiated a process for conversion of SPOs into constables on compassionate grounds. Rather, along with five other SPOs, was not considered for conversion despite recommendations by the competent authority.
The group subsequently approached the High Court through SWP No. 1218/2011. By judgment dated February 23, 2012, the court directed the authorities to consider them for appointment and absorption in the Police Organisation as Constable Drivers, with consequential benefits including seniority, on parity with the private respondents in the connected matter.
The government challenged that judgment through LPA No. 190/2012, but the appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on September 19, 2013. Subsequently, while contempt proceedings initiated by Rather and other SPOs were pending, the government issued Government Order No. 155-Home of 2022 dated May 24, 2022, under which ten SPOs, including Rather, were absorbed or appointed as constables.
The dispute arose after Rather noticed that the government order had recorded his date of birth as March 4, 1981, instead of January 1, 1973. He approached the authorities seeking correction.
The judgment records that communications followed between the concerned police authorities. In a communication dated December 26, 2022, the AIG of Police (Personnel), DGP’s office, forwarded material including a date-of-birth certificate and a genuineness report received from the J&K Board of School Education and requested correction of Rather’s date of birth in the May 24, 2022 government order from March 4, 1981 to January 1, 1973.
According to Rather, however, the correction was not made and a formal appointment order was not issued in his favour. He subsequently submitted a representation seeking correction of the date of birth. Instead of considering that representation, he said, the authorities issued the December 21, 2023 order disengaging him from the rolls of Security Kashmir.
The respondents took a different position. They alleged that Rather had wilfully produced fake and fabricated documents to suppress his actual age and had thereby sought to secure his engagement as an SPO in Security Kashmir. According to the authorities, authenticated records showed his actual date of birth as January 1, 1973 rather than March 4, 1981, making him 32 years, 10 months and two days old when he was engaged as an SPO and, consequently, outside the prescribed age eligibility criteria.
On that basis, the authorities maintained that Rather had deceitfully obtained his engagement through a fabricated document and was subsequently disengaged by the SSP Security Kashmir on December 21, 2023.
The High Court noted that the impugned order itself did not refer to any notice having been issued to Rather or any inquiry having been conducted before the authorities proceeded against him.
“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 dismissal from service upon the Petitioner,” Justice Chowdhary observed.
The court held that an employee facing disengagement is at least entitled to a show-cause notice, if not an inquiry under the applicable rules. It said the requirement flows from the doctrine of audi alteram partem, under which a person should not be condemned unheard and must know the case he or she has to meet and be given a reasonable opportunity to present a defence.
In support of its reasoning, the court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank & Ors. v. Debasis Das & Ors., which explains the importance of natural justice and the requirement of notice before an adverse administrative decision.
The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that “no one should be condemned unheard” and that notice must be precise and unambiguous, giving the affected person adequate time to make a representation. The Supreme Court had further held that in the absence of such notice and reasonable opportunity, an adverse order becomes wholly vitiated.
The court also relied upon Dharampal Satampal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors., where the Supreme Court held that natural justice includes the opportunity of being heard and the duty to give reasons for a decision. The principles, the Supreme Court had said, extend even to administrative authorities and constitute a code of fair administrative procedure.
The High Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India, for the principle that even alleged suppression of material information or furnishing of false information does not, by itself, permit an employer to arbitrarily discharge or terminate an employee.
Justice Chowdhary also referred to earlier judgments of the High Court dealing with 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.
The judgment took particular note of a recent Division Bench ruling in Union Territory of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah, in which, according to the court, identical principles were applied to SPO disengagement cases. The Division Bench held that where a stigma or allegation results in disengagement, the SPO must be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to submit a reply or be heard before the authority takes an appropriate decision.
The court noted that in cases where an SPO is disengaged on account of alleged misconduct, an opportunity of hearing is a minimum requirement and the doctrine of audi alteram partem has to be followed.
Applying those principles to Rather’s case, the High Court found that no show-cause notice or inquiry had been conducted before he was removed over the allegation concerning his date-of-birth documents.
The court said the authorities had proceeded against him on the basis of a “stigmatic accusation” for which he was required to be heard in his defence.
“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 consequently allowed the petition, quashed Order No. 312 of 2023 dated December 21, 2023 and directed the respondents to reinstate Rather with all consequential benefits, excluding emoluments for the period from the date of his disengagement until restoration of his services.
At the same time, the court made clear that the quashing of the disengagement order did not prevent the authorities from examining the allegation afresh. They may revisit the issue concerning the alleged fake date-of-birth certificate, but must do so in accordance with the applicable rules and after giving Rather an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of as allowed, along with the connected miscellaneous application.
