SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the disengagement of a Special Police Officer (SPO) who stopped reporting for duty after allegedly receiving threats from militants, holding that SPOs do not enjoy the service protections available to regular police officers and that, in any event, refusal to perform police duties because of militant threats was sufficient ground for ending his engagement.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in an oral judgment pronounced on August 10, 2026, dismissed a petition filed by Hemo Hamid Wani, holding that the authorities were not required to conduct an enquiry or provide him an opportunity of hearing before disengaging him from service.
Wani, represented by advocate Shabir Ahmad Dar, had challenged Order No. 275 of 2026 dated January 24, 2026, through which the Director General of Police, J&K, rejected his representation against his disengagement as an SPO. The respondents were represented by counsel for the Union Territory, though no lawyer’s name is specified in the order.
Wani had been appointed as an SPO in 2012 under Order No. 278 of 2012 dated April 12, 2012. According to his petition, he was posted with the IRP 18th Battalion at Reshipora, Shopian, when turmoil broke out in 2015. He was then at home on medical leave.
The petitioner claimed that he subsequently received life threats from militants and, as a result, could not return to his duties. When he eventually went back to his place of posting, he alleged that he was not permitted to join duty.
After his representations to the authorities produced no result, Wani approached the High Court in an earlier writ petition, WP(C) No. 629/2024. On August 30, 2025, the Court directed the authorities to consider his representation and pass a speaking order.
Following that direction, the DGP rejected his representation, prompting the present petition.
Wani argued that his disengagement was illegal because no enquiry had been held, no formal charge had been framed and he had not been given an opportunity of hearing. He contended that the action violated Articles 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution and Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules.
The Court, however, rejected the contention that an SPO enjoys the same service protections as an ordinary police officer.
Justice Dhar noted that Wani had been engaged temporarily as an SPO on consolidated wages under Section 18 of the Police Act. Such an engagement, the Court said, does not confer a civil post regulated by statutory service rules.
The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Bilal Ahmad Sheikh v State of J&K & Others, which in turn had followed a Division Bench judgment in State of J&K v Mohammad Iqal Mallah.
The Court cited the earlier ruling to hold that SPOs are appointed for specific purposes when the regular police force is insufficient to maintain peace and protect inhabitants, and that their engagement “is not of a permanent nature but it is only to take care of a particular contingency”.
While Section 19 of the Police Act gives SPOs the same powers, privileges and protections as ordinary police officers in matters such as crowd control and prevention of unlawful assemblies, the provision does not extend the service-condition protections available to regular police personnel, the Court said.
“Therefore, they are not entitled to any protection as afforded to ordinary police officers under Police Rules or Civil Service Regulations,” the Court observed, relying on the earlier judgment.
Justice Dhar consequently held that Wani was not entitled to a right of hearing or an enquiry before his disengagement.
“Therefore, it was not obligatory upon the respondents to hold an enquiry or give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before disengaging his services as an SPO,” the Court said.
The Court then considered the petitioner’s own explanation for not reporting for duty—namely, that he had been threatened by militants.
Even assuming that Wani had a right to be heard before disengagement, Justice Dhar held that the admitted fact that he had stopped attending duty because of militant threats provided sufficient justification for ending his engagement.
“A police official of whatever rank, if he gets frightened and threatened by the militants and refuses to attend his duties then only God can save this Country,” the Court observed.
The Court described the justification offered by Wani for not attending his duties as “unacceptable to say the least”.
It further held that, in the circumstances of the case, providing him an opportunity to present his case before disengagement would have been an “empty formality”.
“Thus granting an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case prior to his disengagement from service, in the facts of the instant case, would have been an empty formality,” Justice Dhar said.
The High Court accordingly found no reason to interfere with the DGP’s January 24 order rejecting Wani’s representation.
“For the foregoing reasons, respondent No. 2/Director General of Police, J&K has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner,” the Court held.
The writ petition was consequently dismissed as being without merit. The judgment was pronounced at Srinagar on August 10, 2026.
