Srinagar, Aug 31: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has quashed the dismissal of a J&K Bank officer, holding that the bank cannot terminate an employee without a departmental inquiry unless all mandatory conditions prescribed under Clause 12.29 of the Officers Service Manual (OSM) are fulfilled.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Saadut Hussain Pampori, who was terminated from the post of Deputy General Manager on July 15, 2024.
Pampori had challenged his dismissal, arguing that the conditions required for invoking the special powers of the bank’s Managing Director and CEO under Clause 12.29 had not been met. He submitted that no FIR had been registered against him and that no investigation had been conducted by any State, Union Territory or central investigating agency into allegations of his involvement in “terrorist or anti-national activities.”
The High Court held that four conditions must be satisfied before the MD and CEO can exercise powers under Clause 12.29 without conducting a departmental inquiry.
These include an investigation by a State, UT 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, sovereignty or integrity of the country; 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 such advice without departmental proceedings.
The court also rejected the argument that the powers available to the bank’s MD and CEO under Clause 12.29 are equivalent to the powers exercised by the President or Governor under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution.
It observed that while Article 311(2)(c) does not require a prior investigation or advice from another authority, Clause 12.29 specifically incorporates such safeguards as preconditions for dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry.
The court further noted that the greater discretion available to the President and Governor, as high constitutional functionaries, cannot be extended to the Managing Director and CEO of a bank.
In Pampori’s case, the court noted that it was admitted that no FIR had been registered against him. While an FIR was not considered an essential prerequisite for an investigation under Clause 12.29, the court held that the discreet verification and information gathered from confidential sources in the case did not amount to an investigation as required under the provision.
Consequently, the High Court quashed Pampori’s dismissal and restored him to the status he held immediately before his termination. However, it left it open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with the prescribed procedure or conduct a regular departmental inquiry.
