Why court called police constable ‘pawn in hands of enemy’ while upholding his dismissal

Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar highlighted that the integrity and sovereignty of India have often been threatened by proxies of a neighbouring country.

The high court was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by the union territory administration against a 2011 single-judge order that had set aside the dismissal of constable Ghulam Mohd Tantray. The bench ultimately restored the dismissal order. 

‘Enemies using multiple tools, strategies’

• The high court mentioned that it cannot remain oblivious to the ground situation, which was then prevailing in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The court added that the enemy has been using multiple tools and strategies to disintegrate our nation by creating terror and promoting dissatisfaction amongst the people of the valley against the government of India.
• It mentioned that one such strategy in those days was to infiltrate the government through government employees and members of the security forces. 
• The court further added that the enemy succeeded to some extent and made considerable inroads into the government machinery at one point in time.
• The court found that the authority realised that in the atmosphere then prevailing, nobody would come forward to depose against the constable without exposing himself or herself to threat to life and property. 
• It was further noted that, accordingly, the matter was placed before a committee constituted by the government for examination. 
• The court mentioned that it was totally erroneous on the part of the single judge to deal with the matter in a slipshod manner and set aside the dismissal of the constable on the ground that it could not find any material justifying the dispensing with the departmental enquiry. 
• The high court found that it was true that the dismissal order merely stated that the government is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the state, it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the matter without disclosing anything more. 
• The court found that the driver constable in the police department was involved in subversive activities aimed at the disintegration of the country. 

Joined in 1991, dismissed in 2004

It was placed on record that Tantray was enrolled in the police department in 1991. He was allegedly found involved in anti-national activities in 2004 and was arrested by the police for offences under Section 120-B Ranbir Penal Code (criminal conspiracy) and the Indian Arms Act. 

Simultaneously with the registration of the said FIR, the constable was placed under suspension, and a departmental enquiry was initiated.

During suspension, he remained attached to the police line and received a subsistence allowance without any work. It was in that background that the authorities reinstated him till the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. 

While the enquiry was yet to proceed formally, the authority allegedly found the activities of the constable detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the state, and dismissed him from service in terms of the government order dated April 2, 2004. 

As per the interrogation report, the driver constable was in contact with a Pakistani mercenary and had arranged for him a permanent hideout in the house of one Haji Mushtaq Gaji. 

Later, on a tip-off, the house of Haji Mushtaq was raided, from where a large quantity of arms and ammunition was allegedly recovered. Subsequently, Haji Mushtaq was arrested, and his investigation led to the role of the constable. 

It was also reported that the rented accommodation of the constable was searched by the police party, wherein two hand grenades were recovered. 

The constable challenged the said government order precisely on the ground that his services could not have been terminated by the authorities without conducting a departmental enquiry and providing him an adequate opportunity to defend himself, and that the procedure laid down in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was not followed before imposing the major punishment of dismissal. 

Tantray was represented by Senior Advocate Syed Faisal Qadiri, while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri argued on behalf of the state.