Srinagar, May 31 : The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a police constable accused of having links with militants and involvement in anti-national activities, setting aside a 2011 judgment of a Single Judge that had quashed his termination from service.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar allowed the appeal filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs Ghulam Mohammad Tantray (LPAW No. 268/2011), holding that the authorities had rightly invoked Section 126(2)(c) of the erstwhile Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir in the interest of the security of the State.
The government was represented by Mohsin S. Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General.
According to the judgment, Ghulam Mohammad Tantray, who joined the police department in 1991, was arrested in 2004 in connection with FIR No. 06/2004 registered at Police Station Zadibal, Srinagar, on allegations of involvement in anti-national and militant-related activities. Although a departmental inquiry had initially been initiated against him, the government later dispensed with the inquiry and terminated his services, citing concerns related to State security.
The Single Judge had, in 2011, set aside the dismissal order, observing that the authorities had failed to justify abandoning the departmental inquiry midway. Challenging the verdict, the government argued that conducting a regular inquiry would have compromised sensitive security interests and exposed witnesses and officials to serious threats.
After examining the official records, including material placed before the Cabinet, the Division Bench found sufficient grounds to support the government’s decision. The court noted that the respondent was allegedly in contact with a Pakistani militant, had arranged a hideout for him, and that searches conducted during the investigation led to the recovery of arms, ammunition and hand grenades.
The Bench further observed that reports placed before the Cabinet indicated that witnesses would have been unwilling to testify due to fear of reprisals and that holding a departmental inquiry could have jeopardized the safety of officials and exposed security-sensitive information.
Referring to settled constitutional principles governing Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India and its J&K equivalent, the court held that while such decisions are subject to judicial review, courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the government’s subjective satisfaction unless the action is shown to be mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations.
The High Court held that the writ court had overlooked significant material available on record and had erroneously concluded that there were no valid reasons for dispensing with the departmental inquiry. The Bench observed that the record clearly demonstrated adequate justification for invoking the constitutional provision.
Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench set aside the 2011 judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent, thereby restoring the order of dismissal from service. (KNC)
