Back
High Court of J&K and Ladakh Quashes J&K Bank Employee's Dismissal for Lack of Proper
In a significant ruling that underscores the for bank employees, the quashed the of a Deputy General Manager of the . Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the Managing Director and CEO could not invoke the under without a proper — and do not suffice.
Background: A Veteran Employee’s Sudden Fall
The petitioner, Saadut Hussain Pampori, joined J&K Bank as a Computer Engineer in 1995 and rose through the ranks over nearly three decades, serving as Deputy General Manager from 2022. In , he was placed under suspension pending into misconduct. Without any , on , the Bank dismissed him under Clause 12.29 of the OSM, relying on an advice from the Director General of Police () that alleged his involvement in , including running a hashtag campaign called “#TortureKashmir.”
The Core Legal Question: What Constitutes ‘’ Under Clause 12.29?
The petitioner’s counsel, , argued that no FIR was registered, no investigating agency had conducted a formal probe, and the conditions of Clause 12.29—requiring an by a State/UT/Central Investigating Agency followed by a finding of involvement in —were not met. The respondents countered that the term “” in Clause 12.29 should be interpreted broadly to include discreet verification and intelligence gathering, and that the power under the clause is analogous to , which allows in the interest of .
Court’s Analysis: Distinguishing Constitutional Powers from Bank Service Rules
Justice Dhar carefully compared Article 311(2)(c) with Clause 12.29 of the OSM. He noted that while the President or Governor can dispense with an inquiry based on satisfaction alone, the Managing Director of a bank does not enjoy such . Clause 12.29 mandates : (i) an by a competent agency, (ii) a finding of involvement in , (iii) advice from an authority not below the rank of Principal Secretary or Director General of Police, and (iv) dismissal forthwith on such advice. The court observed that the language of Clause 12.29 was deliberately restrictive, recognizing that a constitutional functionary like the President can be trusted with , but a bank official cannot.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“Dismissal of an employee from service without holding an inquiry is a drastic step, which has to be taken only in rare and appropriate cases. In the present case, in the absence of any , with a finding about involvement of the petitioner in , etc., it was not open to the Managing Director and CEO of the respondent-Bank to issue the impugned order.”
“The information obtained from sources or made by the Director General of Police or any other competent authority would not fall within the meaning of expression ‘’ as used in Clause 12.29 of the OSM, because the process of gathering such information does not involve collection of material/evidence or recording of statements of witnesses.”
“While the President and the Governor are high constitutional functionaries and, therefore, they can be trusted with the of dispensing with the services of an employee without holding an inquiry in appropriate cases, the same level of trust cannot be reposed in an officer of the level of Managing Director and CEO of a bank.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Balbir Singh (1998) 5 SCC 216, which limits of orders under Article 311(2)(c) to cases of or . However, the court distinguished that precedent because Clause 12.29 imposes additional procedural requirements that were not followed.
The Verdict: Quashed With Liberty to Proceed Afresh
Justice Dhar quashed the dismissal order dated and directed that the petitioner be restored to the status he held immediately before the order. The court gave the respondents two options: they may either conduct a proper as required under Clause 12.29 and then pass a fresh order, or proceed with the regular that was contemplated after the suspension order. The suspension order itself, not being challenged, remains in effect.
Implications for Service Law and Provisions
This judgment clarifies that even when concerns are invoked, bank employees cannot be dismissed without a genuine involving collection of evidence and recording of witness statements. The ruling sets an important precedent for public sector banks and similar institutions that have adopted clauses akin to Clause 12.29, ensuring that the exception to the is not misused. The court has effectively drawn a line between the unfettered constitutional power of the President/Governor and the of a bank’s CEO, thereby reinforcing in employment termination.
