The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the dismissal of a Jammu and Kashmir Bank officer accused of involvement in an alleged anti-India social-media campaign, ruling that discreet enquiries and intelligence inputs alone could not justify his dismissal without an investigation or departmental inquiry.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment dated August 29, set aside the July 15, 2024 dismissal of Saadut Hussain Pampori, a deputy general manager who joined the bank as a computer engineer in 1995.
Court says discreet enquiry cannot replace investigation
Pampori was suspended in April 2024 and subsequently dismissed under Clause 12.29 of the bank’s Officers Service Manual.
The provision allows dismissal without departmental proceedings in specified circumstances involving terrorist or anti-national activities or conduct considered threatening to national security.
Authorities alleged that Pampori was involved in an organised social-media campaign using the hashtag #TortureKashmir, which they claimed was aimed at creating false narratives against the Indian State.
The bank relied on a confidential CID report, information from sensitive sources, discreet enquiries and social-media posts.
The High Court, however, held that the material relied upon did not satisfy the requirement of an “investigation” under Clause 12.29.
Court rejects comparison with Article 311
The court said an investigation in this context requires the collection of material or evidence and the recording of statements from people acquainted with the relevant facts before an employee’s involvement can be established.
It clarified that registration of an FIR is not mandatory, but discreet verification cannot by itself be treated as a substitute for an investigation.
The bank and government had argued that Clause 12.29 was comparable to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, which permits the President or Governor to dismiss a government employee without an inquiry when satisfied that holding one is not expedient in the interest of State security.
The court rejected the comparison, observing that the constitutional powers of the President or Governor cannot simply be equated with those of a bank’s managing director and CEO.
The additional safeguards contained in the bank’s service rules must therefore be followed, the court held.
Officer restored, but case can be pursued again
Pampori has been restored to the status he held immediately before his dismissal.
However, the judgment does not amount to a clean chit. The bank remains free to proceed against him afresh after complying with Clause 12.29 or through a regular departmental inquiry.
The ruling comes amid the administration’s wider use of Article 311(2)(c) in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the report, 89 government employees had been dismissed under the provision by January 2026, with authorities citing activities considered prejudicial to national security.
The judgment thus underscores the distinction between intelligence inputs and the procedural safeguards required before disciplinary action can be taken under an institution’s own service rules.