Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 8: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that if officials of the police force, who are assigned the task of protecting the life and property of the common people, feel afraid of anti-national and anti-social elements, then they do not deserve to be the part of the belt force.
The observation has been made in a petition filed by Aijaz Rashid Khandey challenging order No.125 of 2019 dated 27.03.2019, whereby his services as Special Police Officer (SPO) have been disengaged on account of his unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 03.10.2018.
The petitioner was engaged as SPO in the year 2014 in terms of order No.355/2014 dated 08.07.2014 and in terms of order dated 19.08.2014, he was posted at GPRS, Anantnag. In the year 2016, law and order situation in Kashmir Valley, particularly in South Kashmir, became precarious and the police personnel, particularly the SPOs started receiving threats to their life from the militants and they were asked to give up their jobs.
In September 2018, the petitioner received life threats and he was under continuous surveillance of some unknown armed persons, as a result of which he could not attend his duties. In February 2019, due to ease in situation, the petitioner proceeded to resume his duties but was not allowed to do so. Therefore, on the recommendations of respondent, impugned order came to be issued whereby services of the petitioner were disengaged on account of his unauthorized absence.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice as neither any enquiry has been held against the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to him.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “it is clear that the petitioner, who was engaged as SPO, was not entitled to any right of hearing or enquiry keeping in view the nature of his engagement. Therefore, it was not incumbent upon respondents to hold an enquiry or give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before disengaging his services as SPO”.
“Even otherwise, such an enquiry was not necessary at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case because, admittedly, the petitioner was absent from duty from 03.10.2018 up to 19.02.2019 when he approached the respondents for resuming his duties. The explanation tendered by the petitioner for not attending his duties is that he was threatened by militants and was asked to give up his duties. The explanation given by the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from duty is not tenable at all”, High Court said.
“If officers/officials of the police force, who are assigned the task of protecting the life and property of the common people, feel afraid of anti-national and anti-social elements, then such police officers/officials do not deserve to be the part of the belt forces. If the guardians of security of the common people abdicate their duties, then only God can save this country”, High Court said, adding “the ground projected by the petitioner for his absence from duty can by no stretch of imagination be termed as genuine”.
“Thus, even if an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner, the same would be an empty formality and it would not improve his case in any manner. The principles of natural justice do not operate in vacuum. Once the facts are evident, it would be an exercise in futility to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, on this ground also, there was no need to hold an enquiry against the petitioner to prove his absence from duty”, High Court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
