JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) on 02.08.2006 and was allotted belt No. 493. He was initially posted as SPO at Post Sonwa was subsequently transferred from Sonwa to Luroo vide Order No. 633 of 2007 dated 15.10.2007. The petitioner was posted for examination duty on 01.11.2007 at Higher Secondary School, Neel, where the Class 10th examination was being conducted. It is submitted that while discharging his duties, he was implicated in a false case and FIR No. 241/2007 for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 RPC in Police Station, Banihal and he faced trial in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Banihal. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that while on duty, where class 10th examination was being conducted and he was maintaining law and order in the examination centre, when an altercation occurred between him and Muzaffar Hussain Dang, who was helping some students in cheating, and was stopped by the petitioner. This resulted in registration of false case against him. The petitioner faced trial for the offences under Section 341/323/325 RPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banihal. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges by the learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Banihal, vide its judgment dated 23.11.2012. 3. The services of the petitioner were terminated by respondents without providing any notice to him. The petitioner approached the respondents and he was informed that his services were disengaged as FIR was registered against him. The services of the petitioner were disengaged merely on the basis of the registration of FIR without holding any enquiry and without providing any opportunity of being heard. In fact, neither any notice of discharge was served upon him nor any copy of disengagement order was provided to him. 4. The petitioner, immediately after his acquittal, approached respondent No. 5 along with the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2012 with a request to reinstate him as SPO but no decision was taken by the respondents. The petitioner, having no other recourse, served a legal notice, dated 09.07.2015 through his counsel upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for reinstating him on the post of SPO, but no action in this regard was taken. 5. The petitioner, having no other recourse, served a legal notice, dated 09.07.2015 through his counsel upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for reinstating him on the post of SPO, but no action in this regard was taken. 5. The petitioner also approached respondent No. 5 by way of an RTI application seeking information regarding the basis on which he was terminated, but no information in this regard was provided to him. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for quashing the order of his termination dated 15.11.2007 and also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate him as SPO with all the consequential benefits. 6. The petitioner has assailed his order of disengagement/termination on the ground that the order impugned was passed without holding any enquiry or providing any opportunity of being heard to him and against the principles of natural justice, no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him and principles of natural justice. The petitioner, being an SPO, is entitled to same protection and privilege as of other ordinary police officials in terms of the J&K Police Act. The respondents without following the procedure prescribed in the J&K Police Act have terminated his services. The petitioner has been honourably exonerated in the trial in which he was falsely implicated, as such, is entitled to his reinstatement/engagement as an SPO. 7. It is further submitted that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any inquiry was conducted by the respondents before terminating his services, as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents have violated the principles of natural justice by not conducting any inquiry, and even in the case of a temporary appointment, it was incumbent upon the employer to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before terminating his services. The petitioner, while discharging his duties, was involved in a false and frivolous case, of which he has been acquitted and, therefore, is required to be reinstated. 8. The petitioner, while discharging his duties, was involved in a false and frivolous case, of which he has been acquitted and, therefore, is required to be reinstated. 8. The termination of the petitioner, it is submitted, is also violative of the mandatory provisions of Rule 349(1) of the Police Rules, which provides that whenever a Superintendent of Police receives a complaint against a Police Officer that he has committed an offence, the substance of the complaint shall be immediately reported to the District Magistrate, who may decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a Police Officer or by a Magistrate. 9. Rule 338(3) of the J&K Police Rules also provides that when a police officer has been tried judicially and is acquitted on a criminal charge, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a charge based on evidence that has been rejected by the Criminal Court but the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner illegally and against the rules, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 10. In their response, the respondents submit that the order of disengagement of the petitioner was passed on 15.07.2007 and vide order No. 698 of 2007 dated 15.07.2007, the petitioner was struck off the rolls of SPO with immediate effect. The petitioner has filed this petition after a period of more than eight years from the date he was struck off from the rolls and there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and lacks. The petitioner after accepting the disengagement order cannot now turn around and challenge the same after a long gap of eight years. 11. The respondents further submit that an FIR, which was registered against the petitioner while serving as SPO, for which he had to face trial and, as such, he was struck off from the rolls of SPO with immediate effect vide order dated 15.11.2007, the acquittal of the petitioner was merely on technical grounds, thus, the same cannot be held to be an honorary acquittal, and thus, he cannot be re-engaged as SPO in the department. The engagement of SPO is only temporary in nature and he can be disengaged at any time without issuance of any prior notice. 12. The engagement of SPO is only temporary in nature and he can be disengaged at any time without issuance of any prior notice. 12. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide Order No. 698 of 2007 dated 15.11.2007, which reads as under: “SPO Swaran Singh No. 493/SPO, S/o Chur Singh is struck off from SPO Rolls with immediate effect as the said SPO is found involved in case FIR No. 241/2007 U/S 323/341 RPC of PS Banihal. The Head of the subordinate unit will collect the uniform articles/I. Card/Arms and Ammunition issued to him and deposit them with DPL, Ramban. He will send me a compliance report within three days.” 13. The termination of the petitioner, therefore, was only on the basis of his involvement in case FIR No. 241/2007 under Sections 323/325/341 of RPC at Police Station, Banihal. The trial of the petitioner for the offences alleged in FIR No. 241/2007 was held in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Banihal, who, vide its order dated 23.11.2012 acquitted the petitioner. 14. The learned Magistrate has found the version of the complainant doubtful. The petitioner was acquitted by holding as under: “The weapon of offence is already found doubtful. There is no mention of attack by fists and blows, i.e., other than the use of stick on the person injured as per investigation and as per statement of injured himself. The presence of all the other eye witnesses as discussed supra is found doubtful. The complainant/injured himself admitted in his cross examination that during board examination in school one should not go near the school. His version of going to school for attestation of BA degree form is also found doubtful. Material Witness Anurodh Singh present on the spot is not arrayed as witness in Challan. Hence the shadow of doubts linger on the prosecution story and prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was voluntarily attack of stick made by accused on nose of injured after stopping his way without any provocation as required for the purpose of conviction under Section 341/323/325 RPC. Accused is acquitted of the said charges in case FIR No. 241/2007 of Police Station, Banihal, and set at liberty. The Challan file is accordingly, disposed of, and is consigned to record after its due compilation.” 15. Accused is acquitted of the said charges in case FIR No. 241/2007 of Police Station, Banihal, and set at liberty. The Challan file is accordingly, disposed of, and is consigned to record after its due compilation.” 15. Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner was not only on technical grounds but the Court found the version of the complainant doubtful and the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. It was next argued that the engagement of SPO is temporary in nature and they can be disengaged at any time without issuance of prior notice. 16. Rule 18 of the Police Act, 1983, defines the engagement of Special Police Officers (SPO), it reads as under: “18. Special Police officers –– When it shall appear that nay unlawful assembly, or riot or disturbance of the peace has taken place, or may be reasonably apprehended, and that the Police force ordinarily employed for preserving the peace is not sufficient for its preservation and for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of property in the place where such unlawful assembly or riot or disturbance of the peace has occurred, or is apprehended, it shall be lawful for any Police officer not below the rank of Inspector to apply to the nearest Magistrate to appoint so many of the residents of the neighborhood as such Police officer may require to act as Special Police officers for such time and within such limits as he shall deem necessary; and the Magistrate to whom such application is made shall unless he see cause to the contrary comply with the application. 19. Powers of Special Police Officers –– Every special Police Officer so appointed shall have the same powers, privileges and protection, and shall be liable to perform the same duties and shall be amenable to the same penalties, and be subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary officers of Police.” 17. Therefore, every SPO, so appointed, is vested with the same powers, privileges and protection to perform the same duties and should be amenable to the same penalties, and be subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary officers of Police. The SPO are also entitled to same protection as that of other ordinary police officers. Therefore, every SPO, so appointed, is vested with the same powers, privileges and protection to perform the same duties and should be amenable to the same penalties, and be subordinate to the same authorities as the ordinary officers of Police. The SPO are also entitled to same protection as that of other ordinary police officers. Thus, Rule 349(1) and 338(3) of the Police Rules are applicable to the SPOs which reads as under: “349(1) Whenever a Superintendent of police received a complaint against a Police Officer that under colour of his duties he has committed an offence, as defined in the Ranbir Penal Code, the substance of the complaint, shall be reported immediately to the District Magistrate who will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer or by a Magistrate. If he decided that the investigation or a trial or an inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code should be held by a Magistrate, he shall proceed according to the instructions laid down in the Rules and Orders (Criminal) for the Guidelines of Courts Subordinate to the High Court. 338(3) – When a police officer has been tried judicially and acquitted on a criminal charge, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or on a charge sheet based on evidence which has been rejected by the criminal Court.” 18. This aspect has been considered by this Court in case titled Sharaz Hussain Shah vs. State of J&K and others, decided on 26.07.2023. Paragraph 11 being relevant is reproduced as under: “11. Rule 359 of Rules of 1960, as noticed above, provides for procedure in Departmental Enquiries and envisages that the officer conducting an enquiry shall summon the accused police officer before him and record and read out to him a statement summarizing the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded and if the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him, the enquiry officer has to record a final order if it is within his power to do so or else forward the same to the officer empowered to decide the same. However, in the event the accused police officer does not admit the misconduct, the enquiry officer has to proceed to record such evidence, oral and documentary, in proof of the allegation as is available and necessary to support the charge, and has to record such evidence in presence of the accused police officer providing him an opportunity to cross-examine. The enquiry officer thereafter considering the evidence so recorded and if opining the allegations having not been substantiated, either discharge the accused police officer himself if he is empowered or else recommend his discharge to the Superintendent of Police or other officer authorized in this regard, or if the Enquiry Officer holds the allegations to have been substantiated against the accused police officer proceed to frame formal charge or charges in writing explaining them to the accused police officer and call upon him to answer the same. The Rule supra further provides that the accused police officer has to be called upon by the enquiry officer to state the defence witnesses whom he wishes to call, whereafter upon conclusion of the defence evidence the inquiry officer may proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment, if empowered to do so, or forward the case with his findings and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. The Rule supra further provides that no police officer shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the action proposed to be taken in the regard to him albeit with a caveat vis-a-vis those police officers who are dismissed or removed or reduced in rank owing to the conviction in a criminal case or that the empowered authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to give to such an accused police officer an opportunity of showing cause or where the Sadr-e-Riyasat (i.e. the Governor) is satisfied that in the interest of security of state it is not expedient to give such an accused officer such an opportunity.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad”, AIR 1960 SC 689 , has held as under: “5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad”, AIR 1960 SC 689 , has held as under: “5. But, if the employer simply terminates the services of a probationer without holding an enquiry and without giving him a reasonable chance of showing cause against his removal from service, probationary civil servant can have no cause of action, even though the real motive behind the removal from service may have been that his employer thought him to be unsuitable for the post he was temporarily holding, on account of his misconduct or inefficiency or some such cause.” 20. The services of the petitioner could have been terminated but before doing so, the petitioner was required to be given opportunity of being heard. In this case, the delay will not come in the way of the petitioner for consideration of his case in view of the judgment passed in ‘Sharaz Hussain Shah’ (supra). 21. In view of the aforesaid, if the petitioner was to be terminated, then his termination should have been done after waiting for the conclusion of the trial, and in case, the respondents had wanted to proceed against him departmentally, they could have granted him an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disengagement order No. 698 of 2007 dated 15.11.2007is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as SPO and he shall be entitled to all the service benefits without any monetary benefits. 22. Disposed of accordingly.