Signing you in

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.

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

“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.”

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.

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.

“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.

Also Read | For 4 years, J&K 35-year-old rarely switched on a phone. Then one mistake

“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.