Kashmir Impulse Desk
Srinagar, Aug 30
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the dismissal of a J&K Bank officer, ruling that the bank’s managing director and chief executive officer could not invoke a special service provision to terminate an employee without a departmental inquiry unless mandatory conditions were met.
Justice Sanjay Dhar held that Clause 12.29 of the Officers Service Manual could not be used in the absence of the safeguards specified under the provision.
Saadut Hussain Pampori, who had been serving as a deputy general manager, was dismissed on July 15, 2024. He challenged the termination, arguing that the conditions required to invoke Clause 12.29 had not been fulfilled.
Pampori said no first information report had been registered against him and no investigation had been conducted by a state, union territory or central investigative agency into allegations concerning terrorist or anti-national activities.
The court identified four conditions that must be satisfied before the bank’s MD and CEO can exercise the power under Clause 12.29.
These include an investigation by a state, UT, or central 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 removal or dismissal from a competent government authority not below the rank of Principal Secretary or Director General of Police; and dismissal based on that advice without departmental proceedings.
The court said that unless those conditions were fulfilled, a bank employee could not be dismissed without a departmental inquiry.
It rejected the argument that the powers under Clause 12.29 were equivalent to those exercised by the President or Governor under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution.
Unlike Article 311(2)(c), the court said, Clause 12.29 contains specific safeguards, including investigation and advice from another competent authority, before a regular inquiry can be dispensed with.
The court noted that no FIR had been registered against Pampori.
It said an FIR was not necessarily a prerequisite for an investigation but found that discreet verification and information gathered from confidential sources in the case did not constitute the investigation required under Clause 12.29.
The court quashed the dismissal and restored Pampori to the position he held immediately before termination.
It left the respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with the prescribed procedure or conduct a regular departmental inquiry.
