Police officials afraid of anti-national, anti-social elements, don’t deserve to be in belt force: HC

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday observed that if officers and 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.
While hearing a petition, the court observed that if the guardians of security of the common people abdicate their duties, then only God can save this Country.
The order has been passed in a petition filed by Aijaz Rashid Khandey, who challenged order No.125 of 2019 dated March 27, 2019, whereby his services as Special Police Officer (SPO) have been disengaged on account of his unauthorised absence from duty with effect from October 3, 2018.
It is case of the petitioner that he was engaged as an SPO in the year 2014 in terms of order No.355/2014 dated July 8, 2014 issued by respondent No.4. The petitioner was allotted belt No.526/GRP-K and in terms of order dated August 19, 2014, he was posted at GPRS, Anantnag. According to the petitioner, he performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors.
It has been submitted that in 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 terrorists and they were asked to give up their jobs.
It has been averred that 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. It has been further contended that 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 No.5, 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.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, after hearing both the sides, observed that it is clear that the petitioner, who was engaged as an 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 an 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 October 3, 2018 upto February 19, 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 terrorists 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. 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. 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. The Court observed that it is clear that the order of disengagement, which is impugned in this petition, is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.