Srinagar: Only God can save this country if a police officer, of whatever rank, gets frightened by terrorists’ threats and refuses duties, J&K high court has said while dismissing a cop’s petition for reinstatement.“The justification provided by the petitioner for not attending his duties is unacceptable, to say the least,” a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said in its Monday order. The judge rejected special police officer (SPO) Hemo Hamid Wani’s argument that he was entitled to the “same powers, privileges and protections available to ordinary officers of police under Police Act”. The HC pointed out that “SPOs do not hold any civil posts regulated by statutory rules”.Residents of a neighbourhood are appointed SPOs “for specific purposes when the force ordinarily employed for preserving peace is not sufficient”. “Thus, engagement of SPOs is not of a permanent nature but only to take care of a particular contingency,” the HC noted.Wani was engaged as an SPO in 2012. In 2015, he was posted at Reshipora in south Kashmir’s Shopian. While at home on medical leave at one point then, he received life threats from terrorists and failed to report back to duties.

When he returned after some time to his posting, he was not allowed to join duty, forcing him to take the matter to senior officers.When no action was taken, Wani moved the HC. In Aug last year, the court directed the J&K police DGP to take a decision on Wani’s plea. The DGP turned it down, forcing Wani to move the HC again.In his HC petition, Wani argued that J&K Police had disengaged him without inquiry, formal charges or hearing.

The action, he said, violated the Constitution’s Articles 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), 21 (right to life and livelihood) and 311 (protection against arbitrary dismissal), besides provisions of J&K Police Rules.

The HC rejected the contentions, saying Wani, as an SPO, was not entitled to any hearing or inquiry in view of the temporary nature of his engagement. Even if it is assumed that Wani had the right to such a hearing, his failure to perform duties in the face of terror threats is enough reason to remove him, the HC held.“Granting an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case prior to disengagement would have been an empty formality. The DGP has rightly rejected the petitioner’s representation. The order does not call for any interference,” Justice Dhar observed.