Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 30: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a police constable accused of assisting a Pakistani militant by arranging a hideout for him, ruling that the Government was justified in dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry in the interest of State security.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed an appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against an earlier judgment of a Single Bench that had quashed the dismissal of Ghulam Mohd Tantray, a driver constable in the Police Department.
Tantray, who joined the Police Department in 1991, was dismissed from service through Government Order No. 367-GAD of 2007 dated April 2, 2007. The dismissal was ordered under Section 126(2)(c) of the erstwhile Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, a provision corresponding to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. The provision allows dismissal of a Government employee without holding a departmental inquiry when the competent authority is satisfied that such an inquiry would not be expedient in the interest of the security of the State.
Challenging the order, Tantray had approached the High Court, arguing that he had been removed from service without being given an opportunity to defend himself. In April 2011, a Single Judge accepted his plea and set aside the dismissal order, holding that the authorities had failed to justify abandoning the departmental inquiry that had initially been initiated against him.
However, the Division Bench reversed that decision, describing the earlier judgment as “sketchy and seriously flawed”. The Bench observed that the official records contained ample material supporting the Government’s decision to invoke the security clause and dispense with a regular inquiry.
According to the court, Tantray was allegedly involved in anti-national activities and was arrested in connection with FIR No. 06/2004 registered at Police Station Zadibal, Srinagar, under Section 120-B RPC and provisions of the Arms Act. The record included an interrogation report and a detailed memorandum prepared by the Home Department for consideration by the Cabinet.
The court noted that these documents indicated Tantray had allegedly maintained contact with a Pakistani militant and arranged a permanent hideout for him in the residence of one Haji Mushtaq Gaji. Despite being a police employee, he was alleged to have engaged in activities considered prejudicial to national security.
The Bench also took note of the prevailing security situation in Jammu and Kashmir at the relevant time, observing that militant groups backed by a neighbouring country were attempting to infiltrate Government institutions and recruit employees working in sensitive departments.
The court found that a committee headed by the Chief Secretary had examined the matter before the Home Department prepared a memorandum for the Cabinet. Following Cabinet approval, the proposal was sent to the Governor, who exercised powers under Section 126(2)(c) and ordered Tantray’s dismissal without a departmental inquiry.
Emphasizing the importance of national security, the Division Bench held that courts may review such actions only when they are shown to be mala fide, arbitrary or based on irrelevant material. However, courts cannot reassess the sufficiency of material relied upon by the competent authority in matters involving the security of the State.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
