SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the dismissal of a Deputy General Manager of J&K Bank, holding that the bank could not invoke its special provision for termination over alleged anti-national activities without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of an investigation.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on August 29, set aside the July 15, 2024 dismissal order issued against Saadut Hussain Pampori, observing that the material relied upon by the authorities was based on information from sources and discreet enquiries and did not amount to an investigation as required under Clause 12.29 of the Bank’s Officers Service Manual (OSM).
Pampori had challenged his dismissal from J&K Bank, where he had served since 1995 and held several senior positions, including Head of IT Operations, Senior Executive Manager (Technology), Assistant Vice President (Technology) and Deputy General Manager.
He was placed under suspension in April 2024 pending an investigation into alleged misconduct. However, he was subsequently dismissed without a departmental inquiry by invoking Clause 12.29 of the OSM.
The order cited his alleged involvement in “terrorist/anti-national activities”.
Before the High Court, Pampori argued that the conditions for invoking Clause 12.29 had not been fulfilled, as no FIR had been registered against him and no investigation had been conducted by any State, UT or Central investigating agency.
The respondents, however, maintained that the J&K Police had conducted a discreet investigation and that material gathered during the exercise was shared with the Government, following which the competent authority advised the Bank to terminate his services.
The respondents also argued that Clause 12.29 was analogous to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, which permits dismissal without an inquiry where holding such an inquiry is not considered expedient in the interest of State security.
The High Court rejected this comparison, holding that Clause 12.29 contains specific preconditions that must be met before the Bank’s Managing Director and CEO can dismiss an employee without a departmental inquiry.
The court identified four mandatory requirements under the clause: an investigation by a State, UT or Central investigating agency; a finding that the employee was directly or indirectly involved in activities against national security; advice for removal or dismissal from a competent government authority of the prescribed rank; and dismissal based on that advice without departmental proceedings.
“Unless the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled,” the court said, an employee cannot be removed or dismissed without holding a departmental inquiry.
On the question of whether an FIR was necessary for an investigation, the court clarified that an investigation under Clause 12.29 need not necessarily be FIR-based.
However, it said such an investigation must involve the collection of material or evidence and recording of statements of persons acquainted with the facts, followed by a finding regarding the employee’s alleged involvement.
In Pampori’s case, the court examined the confidential report submitted by the Director General of Police, CID, which formed the basis of the dismissal.
The report, according to the judgment, relied on information from sensitive and credible sources, discreet enquiries and social media posts allegedly linked to a hashtag campaign, #TortureKashmir.
The court held that information gathered through sources or discreet verification could not by itself qualify as an “investigation” under Clause 12.29.
It observed that such information was largely based on general reputation and that the material placed before the authorities did not demonstrate that any formal exercise involving collection of evidence and recording of witness statements had been undertaken.
The court further said dismissal without an inquiry was a “drastic step” that could be taken only in rare and appropriate cases.
“In the absence of any investigation with a finding about involvement of the petitioner in anti-national activities, etc., it was not open to the Managing Director and CEO of the respondent-Bank to issue the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service,” the court held.
Accordingly, the July 15, 2024 dismissal order was quashed and Pampori was directed to be restored to the status he held immediately before his dismissal.
The court, however, clarified that the authorities were free to proceed afresh against him after fulfilling the requirements of Clause 12.29.
Alternatively, J&K Bank has been given liberty to proceed with a regular departmental inquiry pursuant to the suspension order issued in April 2024.
