Jasbir Kumar v. Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary to Government Home Department, Jammu and Others

ORDER (20.04.2026)

¶1The petitioner came to suffer his immediate disengagement by virtue of an order No. 2434 of 2013 dated 27.09.2013 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu, on a purported alleged misconduct on his part while posted as Special Police Officer (SPO) No. 693/SPOJ attached with Police Post, Sainik Colony, Jammu.

¶2The petitioner had come to be engaged as Special Police Officer (SPO) by virtue of an order No. 1108 of 2000 dated

22.08.2000, therefore, by the time he came to suffer his disengagement in 2013, he had almost 12 years of service as Special Police Officer (SPO).

¶3The petitioner came forward with a writ petition-WP(C) No. 201/2021 assailing his disengagement on the alleged charge.

¶4The institution of very writ petition-WP(C) No. 201/2021 itself was bearing delay and laches but nevertheless, Supplementary List II Serial No. 116

this Court disposed of said writ petition by virtue of an order dated 15.02.2021 by providing that upon a representation to be made by the petitioner before the respondent No.2-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu with respect to his grievance against his disengagement, the same be considered on its merits and disposed of within a period of six weeks.

¶5Since aforesaid direction of this Court was not getting compliance, as such, the petitioner came forward with a contempt petition-CCP(S) No. 154/2022 which was pending on the docket of this Court in which reply-cum-response came to be filed by the respondents thereby disclosing that the petitioner's representation came to be disposed of by virtue of an order No. 31304-10/DPOJ dated 22.05.2021 by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu.

¶6The petitioner came to seek withdrawal of his contempt petition-CCP(S) No. 154/2022 in order to avail appropriate remedy at his disposal and, accordingly, by virtue of an order dated 08.04.2026, the contempt petition came to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶7It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner is now coming forward with present writ petition instituted on

17.04.2026 assailing the course of action which led to his dismissal/disengagement and finally closing his expectation of return to his service with disposal of his representation by virtue of an order dated 22.05.2021 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu.

¶8Mr. Pankaj Katal, learned counsel arguing vice Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate submits that the petitioner is a victim of wrong doing at the end of the respondents. The termination of the petitioner is being referred to be stigmatic in nature and, therefore, in order to remove that stigma and in order to regain his lost service, the petitioner is coming up with the present contempt petition.

¶9In the name of delay and laches, the petitioner has not spared even a one line averment that how by reference to order No. 31304-10/DPOJ dated 22.05.2021, the institution of the writ petition is taking place in April 2026 even if at one point of time during pendency of contempt petition, the petitioner was not aware of passing of an order No. 31304-10/DPOJ dated

22.05.2021.

¶10Mr. Pankaj Katal, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried his best to impress this Court that the impugned order No. 31304-10/DPOJ dated 22.05.2021 accompanying the Statement of Facts filed on behalf of the contemnors came on the docket of the contempt file of this Court in November 2023 but the petitioner was neither aware of the same nor his counsel representing him in the contempt petition aware about the said aspect that his representation stood rejected way back in 2021 and came into public domain in November 2023.

¶11These submissions of Mr. Pankaj Katal, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate have no factual footing in the writ petition to count as averments and an

explanation for delay and laches and, therefore, cannot be entertained for the purpose of consideration except for rejection.

¶12This petition is, thus, found to be seriously afflicted with delay and laches and even if this Court were to examine the legality and validity of the order No. 31304-10/DPOJ dated

22.05.2021 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU

20.04.2026

Sneha

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No. 1067/2026 Jasbir Kumar …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Katal, Advocate vice Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE