6 min readSrinagarUpdated: Sep 2, 2026 08:52 AM IST
Stating that termination of an employee without an inquiry is a drastic step to be taken only in rare and appropriate cases, the J&K High Court has quashed the termination order of a bank officer issued for his alleged involvement in “anti-national” activities.
The court said that in the “absence of any investigation with a finding about involvement of petitioner in anti-national activities”, it was “not open” for the Managing Director and CEO of the J&K Bank to dismiss the officer from service.
The court, however, gave the liberty to the respondent — the bank, in this case — to follow the procedure prescribed in the clause of the Officers Service Manual (OSM) and pass a fresh order against the officer.
“The impugned order (on termination of the bank officer) issued by the respondent being sustainable in law shall stand quashed and the petition shall be relegated to the status, which he was holding immediately prior to the pass of the order,” Justice Sanjay Dhar of the J&K High Court said in his order.
“The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner after fulfilling the requirements of Clause 12.29 of the OSM or in the alternative the respondent bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by holding a regular departmental inquiry contemplated pursuant to the order of suspension dated 15-04-2024.”
Case dates back to 2024
On July 15, 2024, the Managing Director and CEO of the J&K Bank dismissed its Deputy General manager Saadut Hussain Pampori under Clause 12.29 of the bank’s OSM without holding an inquiry against him for his alleged involvement in “terrorist and anti-national activities”. The order said that the action against Pampori was taken after credible reports from the intelligence agencies. Pampori was terminated three months after the bank suspended him from the service, pending an inquiry.
Story continues below this ad
Pampori challenged his dismissal in the J&K High Court, saying the Clause 12.29 can’t be invoked against him since neither an FIR was registered against him nor any investigation was carried out by the state or central intelligence agencies.
In its arguments, the respondents said that Clause 12.29 is analogous to Article 311(2)(C) of the Constitution that allows the President or the Governor to dismiss a government employee without holding an inquiry against him if he is a threat to the security of the state.
The bank further said that as per clause 12.29 of OSM, as the bank receives advice from the competent authority of the government on dismissal or removal of an employee, such employee is to be terminated or removed from service.
Story continues below this ad
‘Stark distinction’
The court, however, observed that there is a “stark distinction” between Article 311(2) (C) and clause 12.29 of OSM. “… in Clause 12.29 of the OSM, certain preconditions have been laid down before the Managing Director of the respondent Bank can invoke the power to dismiss the services of an employee of the Bank without holding an inquiry,” the court observed.
“It is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the OSM, 2022, provide for holding of a regular inquiry against an employee who is sought to be dismissed from service, and Clause 12.29 of the OSM is an exception to those provisions. A plain reading of Clause 12.29 of the OSM would reveal that the following conditions have to be satisfied before the Managing Director and CEO of the respondent-Bank can invoke the powers under the said Clause… Unless the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, an employee of the respondent-Bank cannot be removed or dismissed from service without holding a departmental inquiry,” the court said.The court said while the President and the Governor can be trusted with the drastic power dispensing with the service of an employee without holding an inquiry into appropriate cases, the same level of trust can’t be reposed in an officer of the level of Managing Director and CEO of a bank.
While saying that it is not necessary that investigation is restricted only to FIR-based proceedings, the court said the information collected in the particular case would not fall within the expression of investigation.
Story continues below this ad
“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 before the competent authority tenders its advice to the respondent-Bank for removal/dismissal of the employee from service without holding any departmental inquiry against him,” the court said.
“… A perusal of the confidential report forwarded by the competent authority (Director General of Police, CID), which has become the basis for passing of the impugned order, would reveal that the same is based upon the information received from sensitive and credible sources as also from the discreet enquiries. It is also based upon the material in the shape of posts made by various individuals on the hashtag campaign #TortureKashmir, allegedly operated by the petitioner, inviting the people to let others know about their experiences with what was described as the Indian State’s torture programme in Kashmir…” the court noted.
“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 said.
