“Close Ties With Jamaat-e-Islami & JKLF”, CAT Srinagar Upholds Dismissal Of Kashmir University Professor

The Tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Member (Judicial) D.S. Mahra and Hon'ble Member (Administrative) Prasant Kumar, ruled that Dr. Pandith's termination without a departmental inquiry was constitutionally valid under Article 311(2)(c), in view of the threat his continued employment posed to the security of the State.

In dismissing his plea which challenged his termination the Tribunal observed,

“.. We are of the considered view that there was more than sufficient material indicating the prejudicial activities of the applicant in the State/UT of J&K and the said material was scrutinized and considered by the High Level Committee and after considering the entire material the High Level Committee recommended the dismissal of the applicant under Article 311 (2) (c) of the constitution”

The proceedings arose from a petition originally filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, which was later transferred to the CAT. Dr. Pandith, who had a long academic career and had previously served as Vice-President of the Kashmir University Teachers Association, was dismissed from service by the Lieutenant Governor of J&K following a high-level committee report that found credible material linking him to the banned organisations JeI and JKLF. Aggrieved, Dr. Pandith challenged the dismissal on several constitutional and procedural grounds.

Representing the applicant, Advocate M. Ashraf Wani contended that the University of Kashmir was not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and functioned as an autonomous institution under the J&K University Act, 1969. He argued that as an employee of such an autonomous entity, Dr. Pandith did not hold a "civil post" under the Union Territory of J&K, and therefore the protection and corresponding penalties under Article 311 were inapplicable. Further, he submitted that the Lieutenant Governor, not being the President or a State Governor, lacked the constitutional authority to invoke Article 311(2)(c), and even if such power existed, it was exercised arbitrarily in this case without sufficient material.

On the other side, Government Advocate Waseem Gul, representing the Union Territory and the University, strongly defended the action. He argued that the University of Kashmir is, in fact, under the complete financial, administrative, and functional control of the UT Government, and therefore qualifies as a “State” within the meaning of Article 12. He also stressed that the post held by the applicant was a civil post governed by state service rules and that the Lieutenant Governor, acting under Article 239 as an appointee of the President, was fully empowered to exercise the authority under Article 311(2)(c), especially when invoked for reasons concerning state security.

The Tribunal undertook an extensive legal analysis to adjudicate the matter.

On the issue as to whether the University of Kashmir is a “State” under Article 12 the Tribunal closely examined the statutory framework of the J&K University Act, 1969, and relevant constitutional jurisprudence. It cited landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB to hold that a body functioning with deep financial, functional, and administrative control by the State is indeed a "State" under Article 12.

Applying this standard, the Tribunal concluded that the Kashmir University was not autonomous in any meaningful sense. The involvement of state functionaries including the Lieutenant Governor as Chancellor and the Chief Minister as Pro-Chancellor in the university's governing bodies was found to amount to pervasive state control.

On the second issue of whether the applicant held a “civil post”, the Tribunal held that Dr. Pandith indeed held a civil post under the State. It referenced decisions such as State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, emphasizing the indicia of master-servant relationship appointment, supervision, and control by the UT Government as satisfied in this case. It was also noted that the University had explicitly adopted the J&K Civil Services Regulations, thus bringing its employees under the same service framework applicable to other civil servants.

Turning to the power of the Lieutenant Governor, the Tribunal relied on Article 239(1) of the Constitution and the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. It held that the Lieutenant Governor is the constitutionally designated Administrator of the Union Territory, functioning on behalf of the President. Citing K. Lakshminarayanan v. Union of India, the Tribunal affirmed that the Lieutenant Governor's powers were sufficient to invoke Article 311(2)(c), especially in matters relating to state security.

On the core question of whether the dismissal without inquiry was justified, the Tribunal extensively referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and reiterated that Article 311(2)(c) allows dispensing with inquiry if the President or Governor is satisfied that holding such an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of state security. This satisfaction, though subjective, must be based on material that is not wholly irrelevant or extraneous, it clarified.

Furthermore the Tribunal reiterated that courts cannot sit in appeal over such satisfaction unless it is vitiated by mala fides or complete lack of material. Citing subsequent Supreme Court judgments in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, A.K. Kaul v. Union of India, Balbir Singh v. Union of India, and M.M. Sharma v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that the judiciary's role is limited to reviewing whether any relevant material existed not its adequacy or truth.

Scrutinising the inquiry report, the Tribunal found that in the present case, the decision to dismiss Dr. Pandith was based on inputs scrutinized by a high-level committee, and the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that his continued presence in the university was inimical to the interests of the State.

“.. The activities of the applicant relates to his close association with the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and JKLF, both are banned organizations… The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant that there was sufficient material was not available with the respondents for dismissing the applicant is contrary to the record before us and is without any basis”, recorded the Tribunal.

In light of these findings the Tribunal concluded that the petition of the applicant lacked merit and thus dismissed the application in its entirety.

Case Title: Dr Altaf Hussain Pandith Vs UT Of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment