Police officer can’t run away from duty citing militant threats: J&K High Court

Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently upheld the dismissal of a police constable from service, after noting that the primary reason cited for his unauthorised absence from duty was the rise of militant threats [Mehraj-ud-Din Khan vs UT of J&K and Others].

A Division bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that a police official who does not join duty just because threats from the militants cannot be expected to protect the life and property of the citizens of the country.

“A police official, who does not join duty just because threat from the militants, cannot be expected to protect the life and property of the citizens of the country … a member of the Police force is not expected to run away from his duties just due to threat to his life. The conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a member of Police force,” the Bench observed in its September 4, 2025 judgment.

The Court was hearing a plea by one Mehraj-ud-Din Khan, who had joined the police force in 1987 and proceeded to go on earned leave in June 1990, during the height of militancy in Kashmir.

He was due to return by August 15, 1990, but failed to report back despite repeated notices and reminders. Subsequently, he removed from service on May 6, 1991.

Nearly two decades later, in 2009, Khan filed a representation against his termination from service. He claimed that threats from militants had prevented him from resuming duties. His plea was rejected, leading him to approach the High Court for relief.

In 2016, the Court directed the authorities to reconsider his case and grant him a personal hearing. His representation was again rejected in 2017.

Later, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, also dismissed his petition in March 2025, which prompted him to approach the High Court again for relief.

The High Court noted that Khan had served only three years in the police before staying absent from his post, despite receiving multiple signals and notices instructing him to rejoin. His service record also revealed previous instances of indiscipline and absenteeism.

The Court found no procedural infirmity in the dismissal order, holding that Khan was granted a fair opportunity to be heard but failed to establish any valid grounds for reinstatement.

It proceeded to dismiss his plea as bereft of any merit.(Bar&Bench)