High Court Quashes J&K Bank Employee's Termination Over Alleged Anti-National Activities, Says Mandatory Probe Wasn't Conducted

The Court observed that the power under Clause 12.29 of the Officers Service Manual requires an investigation with a finding of involvement in anti-national activities, and in the absence of such an investigation, the Managing Director and CEO could not have invoked the provision.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one Saadut Hussain Pampori challenging order whereby he was dismissed from service with immediate effect under Clause 12.29 of the Officers Service Manual on the basis of advice tendered by the Director General of Police regarding his alleged involvement in anti-national activities.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while quashing the impugned order, observed,

"Dismissal of an employee from service without holding an inquiry is a drastic step, which has to be taken only in rare and appropriate cases. In the present case, 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 further observed,

"The information obtained from sources or discreet enquiries made by the Director General of Police or any other competent authority would not fall within the meaning of expression 'investigation' as used in Clause 12.29 of the OSM, because the process of gathering such information does not involve collection of material/evidence or recording of statements of witnesses."

Background

The petitioner was appointed as a Computer Engineer with the respondent-Bank on 16.06.1995 and eventually over the period of time rose to the rank of Assistant Vice President (Technology), and Deputy General Manager.

On 15.07.2024, the impugned order was issued by the competent authority invoking Clause 12.29 of the OSM, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service without holding any inquiry on the basis of advice tendered by the Director General of Police regarding his involvement in terrorist/anti-national activities.

The petitioner contended that no FIR was registered against him, no investigation was conducted by any State/UT/Central Investigating Agency, and the conditions prescribed in Clause 12.29 of the OSM for invoking the drastic powers were not fulfilled. The respondents contended that the impugned order was based upon discreet investigation conducted by the J&K Police, which revealed that the petitioner was directly involved in anti-national activities.

Court's Observation

Justice Dhar examined the scope of judicial review in matters relating to dismissal of an employee in the interests of security of the State without holding an inquiry. The Court relied upon Union of India v. Balbir Singh (1998) 5 SCC 216, wherein the Supreme Court held that the scope of judicial review of the satisfaction of the competent authority under Article 311(2)(c) is very limited, and the Court can interfere only if the order is malafide or based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations.

However, the Court distinguished Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution from Clause 12.29 of the OSM. The Court observed: "There appears to be a definite purpose behind the choice of language used in Clause 12.29 of the OSM and that adopted in Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution. While the President and the Governor are high constitutional functionaries and, therefore, they can be trusted with the drastic power of dispensing with the services of an employee without holding an inquiry in appropriate cases, the same level of trust cannot be reposed in an officer of the level of Managing Director and CEO of a bank."

The Court held that Clause 12.29 of the OSM requires certain preconditions to be satisfied before the Managing Director and CEO can invoke the powers under the said Clause. These include an investigation conducted by a State/UT/Central Investigating Agency, a finding of involvement of the employee in terrorist/anti-national activities, and advice by a competent authority not below the rank of Principal Secretary or Director General of Police.

The Court examined the meaning of "investigation" in the context of Clause 12.29 and observed,

"It is not necessary that investigation is restricted only to FIR-based proceedings, particularly in the context of Clause 12.29 of the OSM... However, one thing is clear that to qualify a process as an investigation in terms of the said Clause, the State/UT/Central Investigating Agency has to undertake an exercise of collecting material, recording statements of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case and thereafter, on the basis of such material, involvement of the employee in anti-national activities, etc., has to be established."

The Court found that the report forwarded by the competent authority was based upon information received from sensitive and credible sources as also from discreet enquiries, and material in the shape of posts made on the hashtag campaign #TortureKashmir. The Court observed,

"The information obtained from sources or discreet enquiries made by the Director General of Police or any other competent authority would not fall within the meaning of expression 'investigation' as used in Clause 12.29 of the OSM, because the process of gathering such information does not involve collection of material/evidence or recording of statements of witnesses."

The Court held that the report of the Special DG, CID referring to discreet verification cannot substitute the requirement of holding an investigation. The Court observed,

"The report of the Special DG, CID does not refer to any such process having been undertaken by any authority."

Thus the court quashed the impugned order and relegated the petitioner to the status which he was holding immediately prior to the passing of the impugned order. The Court, however , gave liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh after fulfilling the requirements of Clause 12.29 of the OSM, or in the alternative, to proceed with the departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

Case Title: Saadut Hussain Pampori v. UT of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

Petitioner: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate; Ms. Humaira Sajad, Advocate

Respondents: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG; Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel

Click here to read/download Judgment