Jammu and Kashmir High court reinstates banker fired over ‘anti-national’ activity

The order added, “In the absence of any investigation with a finding about involvement of the petitioner in anti-national activities, etc., it was not open to the Managing Director and CEO of the respondent-Bank to issue the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.”

Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside a bank employee’s dismissal over alleged anti-national activities, stating absence of investigation.

Anti-national activity claim

In 2022, the man was appointed as the Deputy General Manager. On April 15, 2024, the bank suspended him pending an investigation into alleged misconduct. On July 15, 2024, the bank dismissed him without holding a departmental inquiry, invoking a clause of the Officers Service Manual. The order alleged that he was involved in terrorist-national activities.

He challenged the dismissal before the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. He argued that the clause could be used only after an investigation by a State/UT/Central investigation agency established his involvement in such activities, followed by an appropriate recommendation from a competent authority. He said no FIR had been registered and no such investigation had taken place.

The government and the bank defended the dismissal, saying police conducted a discreet investigation and submitted a report that contained material linking the deputy manager to anti-national activities, including allegedly running the #TortureKashmi campaign. They argued that clause 12.29 was similar to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution and allowed dismissal without a departmental inquiry in the interest of national security.

The court examined the confidential report and found that it was based on information from sources, discreet enquiries, and social media posts, but did not show any evidence that the witnesses had been examined or that material had been collected through an investigation as required by Clause.

Man, bank clash over dismissal

Advocates Shariq J Reyaz and Humaira Sajad, appearing for the man, submitted that the bank could not dismiss him without any inquiry because the mandatory conditions under Clause 12.29 had not been met. It was submitted that no investigation by an investigating agency established his involvement in anti-national activities, and that no valid recommendation was based on such an investigation.

The bank argued that it had acted on advice of the competent authority and that a formal FIR was not necessary. It submitted that the police could investigate by collecting information and material through discreet enquiries.

The government argued that the High Court could not reassess the sensitive material and that clause 12.29 allowed the bank to dismiss an employee without a departmental inquiry in such cases.

Court set aside dismissal

The court held that there is a clear distinction between the power exercisable by the President or the Governor under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution and the power exercisable by the Managing Director and CEO of the respondent Bank under Clause 12.29 of the Officers Service Manual (OSM) for dismissal of any employee.

The court dismissed the order and restored him to his previous position, while allowing the authorities to proceed afresh either by following Clause 12.29 properly or by conducting a regular departmental inquiry.