Special Police Officers Don't Hold Civil Post, Not Entitled To Article 311 Protection: J&K&L High Court

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasised that the engagement of Special Police Officers is temporary and contingent in nature and does not confer the status of a civil post under the State. The Bench observed,

“A Special Police Officer engaged in terms of Section 18 of the Police Act cannot claim right to be subjected to regular departmental enquiry before disengagement of his services. At best, a Special Police Officer can claim a right of hearing before any adverse order is issued against him so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. A Special Police Officer does not hold a civil post so as to entitle him to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the provisions contained in Police Rules, which is available to a regular member of police force.”

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a disengaged Special Police Officer who had been engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in terms of Section 18 of the Police Act. Subsequently, the police authorities issued an order disengaging the appellant from service on the basis of allegations relating to his conduct.

Aggrieved by the disengagement order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the order had been issued without conducting a proper departmental enquiry and without affording him the procedural safeguards applicable to members of the regular police force.

Court's Observations:

The High Court examined the statutory framework governing the engagement of Special Police Officers under Section 18 of the Police Act. The Court noted that the provision empowers the authorities to appoint Special Police Officers in circumstances where additional police assistance is required for maintaining public order or performing special duties.

The Bench observed that the engagement of an SPO is purely temporary and need-based, and the person so engaged is paid only a fixed honorarium rather than a salary attached to a regular post. Because of the nature of this engagement, the Court held that an SPO cannot be equated with a regular member of the police force who is appointed to a sanctioned post through a formal recruitment process, the court maintained.

The Court further observed that Article 311 of the Constitution of India protects only persons holding civil posts under the Union or a State, and the constitutional protection cannot be extended to a person whose engagement does not create such a status.

The Bench also examined the Police Rules governing disciplinary proceedings against regular police personnel and held that these rules apply only to members of the regular police establishment. Since an SPO does not form part of the regular police cadre, the Court held that he cannot invoke the procedural safeguards provided under those rules, the Court explained.

At the same time, the Court clarified that even though an SPO cannot claim the protection of Article 311 or insist upon a departmental enquiry, the principles of natural justice would still require that the authorities act fairly while taking an adverse decision affecting his engagement. The Court observed that before disengaging an SPO on allegations relating to his conduct, the authorities should ordinarily afford him a reasonable opportunity of hearing so that he may explain his position.

However, the Court emphasized that this requirement of fairness does not translate into a right to demand a full-fledged disciplinary enquiry akin to the procedure followed against regular government servants.

In view of these observations the court found no legal infirmity in the disengagement order issued by the authorities and hence dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Kripal Singh Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

Click here to read/download the Judgment