SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the dismissal of a JK Bank Deputy General Manager who was removed from service over alleged involvement in terrorist and anti-national activities, holding that the bank could not invoke its special dismissal provision without first 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 and restored him to the status he held immediately before his dismissal. The court, however, left it open to the authorities to proceed afresh against him in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Pampori had challenged his dismissal under Clause 12.29 of the JK Bank Officers Service Manual (OSM), which permits an employee to be removed without a departmental inquiry if specified conditions relating to terrorist or anti-national activities and national security are fulfilled.
The court held that Clause 12.29 lays down four essential conditions: an investigation by a State, Union Territory or Central investigating agency; a finding that the employee was directly or indirectly involved in terrorist or anti-national activities or posed a threat to national security; advice for dismissal or removal from a competent government authority of at least the rank of Principal Secretary or Director General of Police; and dismissal by the bank on the basis of that advice without a departmental inquiry.
The court rejected the bank and government authorities’ contention that Clause 12.29 was analogous to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, under which an inquiry may be dispensed with where the President or Governor is satisfied that it is not expedient to hold one in the interest of State security.
Justice Dhar observed that the Officers Service Manual specifically requires an investigation before the bank can exercise the exceptional power under Clause 12.29. Unlike the constitutional provision, the bank’s rule contains mandatory preconditions which must be met before an employee can be dismissed without a regular inquiry.
The respondents had maintained that the JK Police conducted a discreet investigation which found Pampori involved in activities prejudicial to national security. They also alleged that he had been involved in anti-India campaigns, including the “#TortureKashmir” hashtag campaign, and had links with foreign elements hostile towards India.
The High Court, however, found that the confidential report relied upon for the dismissal was based on information from sources, discreet enquiries and social media material. It held that such material did not amount to the “investigation” contemplated under Clause 12.29, as there was no indication that witnesses had been examined or that material and evidence had been collected through a formal investigative process.
The court clarified that an investigation under Clause 12.29 need not necessarily follow registration of an FIR. However, the investigating agency must undertake a genuine fact-finding exercise involving collection of material and recording of statements before the involvement of an employee in activities covered by the provision can be established.
Holding that dismissal without an inquiry was a drastic measure that could be resorted to only in rare and appropriate cases, the court ruled that the requirements of Clause 12.29 had not been satisfied in Pampori’s case.
The July 15, 2024 dismissal order was accordingly quashed. The court said the authorities may either fulfil the requirements of Clause 12.29 and take fresh action or the bank may proceed with the regular departmental inquiry contemplated after Pampori’s suspension in April 2024.
