Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a police constable accused of militant links, holding that the government was justified in invoking constitutional provisions that allow termination of service without a regular departmental inquiry in matters involving the “security of the state”.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar allowed an appeal by the Union Territory administration and set aside a 2011 Single Judge ruling that had quashed the dismissal order of the policeman.
The case concerns Ghulam Mohammad Tantray, a police constable who was arrested in 2004 in connection with a criminal case alleging his involvement in anti-national activities.
Following his arrest, departmental proceedings were initiated, but the government later dispensed with the inquiry and dismissed him under Section 126(2)(c) of the erstwhile Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, citing security considerations.
The dismissal was challenged before the High Court, with the petitioner arguing that he had been denied an opportunity to defend himself through a regular departmental process.
In 2011, a single judge accepted that contention and set aside the government order.
However, the division bench found that the government had relied on material placed before a committee, the Cabinet and the Governor before invoking the constitutional provision.
According to the judgment, the authorities believed that holding a full-fledged inquiry could compromise sensitive information and expose witnesses to potential risks.
The court observed that constitutional safeguards generally require government employees to be given a hearing before dismissal, but said that exceptions exist in cases involving national or state security.
It held that the government’s satisfaction under the relevant constitutional provision is subject to only limited judicial review.
Reversing the single bench decision, the division bench observed that the writ court had failed to consider the material available on record, including a detailed memorandum placed before the Cabinet.
It further recorded that a committee headed by the Chief Secretary had examined the case and found that conducting a regular departmental inquiry could expose witnesses to threats and jeopardize security interests.
Authorities had cited fears that witnesses would not come forward due to the respondent’s alleged militant connections, and that inquiry officers could face risks to their lives and property.
The judgment extensively discusses Supreme Court precedents on the balance between procedural fairness and security imperatives, concluding that courts cannot substitute their assessment for that of the executive in matters of security unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations.
The ruling comes amid continuing debates over the use of extraordinary constitutional powers that permit the State to bypass ordinary disciplinary procedures in exceptional circumstances.
While governments have defended such measures as necessary tools for protecting security interests, critics have long argued that the absence of a formal inquiry can raise concerns about transparency and due process.
Allowing the appeal, the division bench restored the dismissal order and dismissed the writ petition, bringing to a close a legal battle that had remained pending for nearly two decades.
