SRINAGAR: The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has reversed the dismissal of a Special Police Officer (SPO) and reinstated him, reaffirming the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice.
“You cannot condemn a person to suffer an adverse consequence in the context of his public position/employment without affording him/her an opportunity of knowing the basis upon which a purported adverse action is aimed to be taken against him/her thereby serve him/her with an opportunity to explain his/her position vis-à-vis the adverse civil consequence conceived to emerge,” Justice Rahul Bharti remarked.
The case centred around a video footage incident in July 2019, leading to the registration of an FIR against the SPO and a Sub-Inspector for alleged corruption under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act. However, a subsequent police investigation found the charges against them to be unsubstantiated, resulting in the case being closed.
Despite their exoneration, the SPO was removed from service by the Sr Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu, in an “unceremonious disengagement,” while the Sub-Inspector faced no such consequences. In response, the SPO challenged his dismissal before the J&K High Court.
Justice Bharti emphasised that making decisions solely based on video footage without a proper investigation and denying the accused an opportunity to defend them violated the principles of natural justice. The court equated natural justice with common sense justice, intrinsic to the conscience of humanity, ensuring fairness and a liberal approach in the administration of justice.
The court stated, “When it comes to a matter of an administrative action taking or decision making in discharging/dismissing a person from the position of public employment, be that from a permanent, temporary, or contractual status, to be based upon an adverse judgment drawn by the public authority as an employer against a given employee for any delinquency on his part, then the most elementary procedural safeguard which an employer has to keep in guiding service attending his action/decision is the observance of the rules of natural justice so that a well-meaning action/decision to be taken maintains and retains its foothold in the event of being posed with a legal challenge at the instance of an aggrieved employee.”
The court asserted that condemning a person without affording them the right to be heard and explain their position is contrary to the essence of natural justice. It stressed that any decision or action with legal consequences must be based on a fair and transparent process, allowing the accused to know the case against them and provide a suitable defence.
In light of this, the bench concluded that the order to disengage the SPO was misconceived and directly conflicted with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the SPO to his position with all associated benefits.
