Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kirpal Singh vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And on 21 July, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 133/2026 in
WP(C) No. 440/2021
Reserved on: 06.07.2026
Date of pronouncement:21.07.2026
Date of uploading: 21.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced FULL
Kirpal Singh, aged 60 years ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
S/o Sh. Jamit Ram
R/o Damunda, Bhaderwah,
District Doda.
q
Through: Mr. Abrar Ahmed Khan, Advocate.
vs
01.The Union Territory of Jammu and ..... Respondent(s)
Kashmir through
Commissoner/Secretary
Home Department, Civil Secretariat
Srinagar/Jammu.
02.The Director General of Police,
Jammu and Kashmir PHQ, Jammu.
03.The Deputy Inspector General of
Police,Ramban-Doda Range,
Batote, Ramban.
04.The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Doda.
05.Station House Officer,
Police Station Bhaderwah District Doda.
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Sekhri-J
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
01. Appellant has invoked Letters Patent of this Court against judgment
dated 12.03.2026, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in
“Kirpal Singh vs. UT of J&K and Ors.” ; WP(C) No. 440/2021.
02. Background facts of the case are that appellant came to be engaged as
VDC SPO, pursuant to a scheme launched by the Government. His
services came to be disengaged by virtue of order dated 23.06.2015,
passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda, on the basis of a
written complaint of public of his native village that he would often
remain under the influence of liquor, annoy the co-villagers, speak ill
about others and would even threaten to kill them with his service
weapon. It was also alleged that appellant even refused to share the
honorarium with other members of the Village Defence Committee
(VDC).
03. The appellant impugned the order of his dis-engagement in this Court
through the medium of writ petition; SWP No. 2060/2015, primarily
on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. Refusing allegations that he would often remain under
the influence of liquor and threatened to kill co-villagers with his
service weapon the appellant contended that he was coerced by the
respondents to share his honorarium with members of VDC. This writ
petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated
27.11.2017, whereby appellant was given liberty to prefer
appeal/representation against his dis-engagement and DIG, Doda-
Bhaderwah range or the competent authority, in turn was directed to
accord consideration to his appeal/representation within four to six
weeks.
Page No. 02
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
04. Pursuant to the aforesaid order appellant preferred a representation
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
before DIG, Ramban-Doda range and since it was not decided within
the stipulated period, he preferred a contempt petition in this Court.
During the currency of the contempt petition, however the DIG
concerned, vide order dated 27.03.2018, rejected his representation.
05. The appellant assailed the consideration order, whereby his
appeal/representation came to be rejected, on the predominant
premise that neither he was given an opportunity of being heard
before his dis-engagement nor before rejection of his representation.
06. It was contended by the appellant that punishment of his dis-
engagement was harsh, particularly when his role as VDC SPO had
been appreciated by his superiors. It was further contended that
respondents while dis-engaging his services had failed to adhere to
Rule 337 of Police Rules, as neither any charge sheet was served
upon him nor regular inquiry into the charges was held by the
respondents. The appellant also contended before the writ Court that
since he was engaged as VDC SPO by the Government, it was not
open to SSP, Doda to dis-engage his services.
07. Countervailing the stand of the appellant, it was contended by the
respondents before the writ Court that appellant came to be appointed
as VDC SPO, pursuant to a government scheme to ensure the security
and safety of his co-villagers. In the past, VDC SPOs used to share
their honorarium with other members of VDC out of their free will.
The respondents denied that they ever exerted any pressure upon the
appellant to share his monthly honorarium with the VDC members
and emphatically stated that his service came to be dis-engaged only
on the basis of complaint made by his co-villagers that he would often
Page No. 03
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
remain inebriated and threatened to kill them with his service weapon.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
The villagers got fed up with his mis-deeds and sought his dis-
engagement/dis-armament.
08. It was also contended by the respondents before the writ Court that
despite his dis-engagement, appellant refused to deposit the arms and
ammunition issued in his favour. As a result FIR No. 109/2019 for
offences under Sections 7/25 Arms Act, for possessing illegal
arms/ammunition, came to be registered against him with Police
Station, Bhaderwah. The investigation culminated in a charge sheet
against him in the competent Court and it was only after hectic efforts
of the police that appellant was disarmed and arms and ammunition
could be deposited in Police Station, Bhaderwah in 2019.
09. According to the respondents, an inquiry was conducted by
Additional SP, Bhaderwah concerning the aforesaid allegation against
the appellant and all the allegations came to be established.
10. Appellant assailed findings of the enquiry before learned writ Court
on the ground that neither formal charge was framed against him nor
he was afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
11. Learned writ Court having regard to the facts and circumstances
attending the case, allegations against the appellant and the statutory
rule position has observed that allegations against him were duly
established during a detailed inquiry conducted by SHO Police
Station, Bhaderwah and since he did not hold a civil post so as to
entitle him to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
and provisions contained in Police rules, those are available to a
regular member of police force holding a civil post, he cannot claim a
Page No. 04
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
right to be subjected to a regular departmental enquiry before dis-
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
engagement of his services.
12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties at length and perused
the impugned judgment as well as the material on record, we find that
learned Single Judge has passed a well reasoned and detailed order,
appreciating all relevant facts and applying the correct principles of
law.
13. The Government, vide order No. Home-293 of 1995 dated 30.09.1995
came up with a scheme called “Village Defence Group Scheme” for
the creation of Village Defence Groups, comprising of 10 to 15 armed
civilians of certain categories of volunteers in each village, to be
headed by a retired officer of the Army/CRPF/State Police, who was
to be issued a higher category of weapon and was also to be appointed
and given powers of Special Police Officer (SPO) with initial
honorarium of Rs. 1500/- per month. Said SPOs were to function
under the overall supervision of respective Tehsildars and SHOs on
the instructions of respective District Magistrates and Superintendents
of Police. As per the scheme, the volunteers and the number of
weapons to be allotted in a particular village are to be determined by
the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police concerned.
14. Appellant came to be appointed as VDC SPO pursuant to the
aforesaid scheme but he came to be dis-engaged inter alia on the
allegations that he would often remain inebriated and threatened the
members of VDC and Panchayat. It was also alleged that he refused
to co-operate with the members of VDC and share his honorarium
with them.
Page No. 05
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
15. A perusal of the record reveals that SHO, Police Station, Bhaderwah
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
conducted a detailed enquiry into the allegations against the appellant.
Statements of VDC members of village Dhumunda and statements of
Lambardar and Sarpanch came to be recorded and all of them
corroborated the allegations that appellant would often remain under
the influence of liquor and refused to co-operate with the members of
VDC. They also stated in one voice that appellant refused to share the
honorarium with other members of VDC and threatened the general
public under the cover of his service weapon.
16. Learned Single Judge is of the view that requirement of giving an
opportunity of being heard to the appellant was duly complied by the
respondents by holding an enquiry and permitting him to file
representation against the order of his dis-engagement, where he
raised all the pleas available to him and since these have been
correctly dealt with by the respondents, they were justified in passing
the impugned orders.
17. Appellant has taken an exception to the verdict of learned Single
Judge on the same grounds those were urged in the writ petition that
neither formal charge was framed against him nor he was afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during enquiry nor
afforded an opportunity of being heard.
18. Principles of natural justice are founded on public policy and rooted
in the concept of fairness and equity to ensure that similarly
circumstanced persons are treated equally and justly. However, rules
of natural justice are not strait-jacket formulae to be applied
uniformly in all cases. Its application varies from case to case
depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In
Page No. 06
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
other words, what shall be the extent of requirement of the rules of
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
natural justice would depend upon the facts of a particular case.
While in a particular case, a full-fledged enquiry may have to be held
depending upon the rules, if any, in another case mere opportunity of
hearing may satisfy the requirement of the rules. Primarily, it depends
amongst other things on the response of the delinquent, the nature of
his defence and the nature of action proposed. No hard and fast rule
can be laid down. What is the essence is that he should be given a
reasonable opportunity to offer the defence. The requirements of rule
of natural justice are; (i) that employee is aware about the nature of
charge or accusation against him, (ii) that opportunity is given to him
to state his case; and (iii) that employer should act in good faith i.e.,
to say the action of the employer should be fair and reasonable.
19. The issue with respect to the appointment made under a scheme vis-a-
vis a post created under a statute arose for discussion before Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC
681, whereby it was held that a distinction is to be made about a post
created in exercise of the power under the Constitution of India or
under a statute vis-a-vis appointments made under a scheme. It was
clearly ruled that appointments made under a scheme or carried out
through a committee, would not render the incumbents as holders of a
civil post.
Relevant excerpt of the judgment for the ease of reference is extracted
below:-
“Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment
process being carried out through a committee, in our
opinion, would not render the incumbents thereof holders of
civil post. Our attention has not been drawn to any rule or
regulation governing the mode of their recruitment. Some
statements in this behalf have been made by the intervenersPage No. 07
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
but for the reasons stated hereinbefore, we cannot enter
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
thereinto. A distinction must be made about a post created
by the Central Government or the State Governments in
exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of the
Constitution of India or under a statute vis-Ã -vis cases of
this nature who are sui generis. Terms and conditions of
services of an employee may be referable to acts of
appropriate legislature. The matter may also come within
the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India as
proviso appended thereto confers power upon the President
or the Governor of a State or other authority, who may be
delegated with such power, to make rules during the
interregnum.”
20. Following the aforesaid verdict, a division Bench of this Court in
State of J&K and Ors. vs. Mohammad Iqbal Mallah [LPA No.
153/2012 dated 05.06.2014] has held that there was no requirement
of law to hold an enquiry for complying with the rules of principles of
natural justice in the case of an employee who was not holding any
post much less a civil post.
Relevant abstract of the judgment is as follows:
“In the present case the petitioner- respondent was working
as SPO at an honorarium of Rs. 3000/- per month. He
decided to absent himself from duty and his services were
disengaged vide order dated 01.07.2011 when he had
rendered less than three years service. He has no right to
any post. There was no requirement of law to hold an
enquiry for complying with the rules of principles of
natural justice as he was not a holder of a post, much less
a civil post. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be accepted
and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to
be set aside.”
21. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid principles of law
enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court and a co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court, we concur with the observation of learned
Single Judge that since appellant was not holding a civil post so as to
entitle him to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
and the provisions contained in the police rules, available to a regular
member of police force holding a civil post, he cannot claim a regular
Page No. 08
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
departmental enquiry before his dis-engagement. Allegations against
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2194-DB
the appellant are very serious in nature that he not only refused to
share the honorarium with fellow VDC members but also threatened
to kill them with his service weapon under the influence of liquor.
Pertinently, his co-villagers got fed up with his mis-deeds and filed
written complaint against him for his dis-engagement/dis-armament.
Appellant was made aware about the nature of charge/accusations
against him in the notice of his dis-engagement. An opportunity was
given to him to state his case through the medium of representation,
where he raised all the pleas available to him and allegations against
him were duly established in the enquiry.
22. Appellant has failed to show any illegality, jurisdictional error or
perversity in the impugned judgment propounded by learned Single
Judge. Hence, present appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment is
upheld.
(Rajesh Sekhri) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Jammu
21.07.2026
Sushant
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes
Page No. 09
LPA No.133/2026 in WP(C) No.440/2021
