Created with AIPRM Prompt “Human-like Rewriter – V1.6”

Amidst the legal landscape of Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir, a notable judicial progression has unfolded. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has decreed that authorities lack the prerogative to terminate a civil servant without substantiating valid grounds for circumventing a departmental investigation.

Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, in sanctioning an appeal filed by a law enforcement officer contesting his dismissal sans procedural fairness, underscored the imperative for authorities to abide by legal protocols. Abdul Hamid Sheikh, the appellant in question, found himself ousted from his position in 2019 under the cloud of purported associations with insurgents. Serving dutifully as a Personal Security Officer (PSO), he was accused of orchestrating the illicit procurement of weaponry from fellow PSOs for the benefit of militant groups.

Mounting a challenge against his dismissal, Sheikh sought recourse from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which upheld the termination, prompting Sheikh to escalate the matter to the High Court. His assertion rested on the allegation that authorities flouted due process and denied him an equitable opportunity to mount a defense.

In rebuttal, the respondents staunchly defended the dismissal, contending that the gravity of the accusations rendered an investigation unfeasible. Nonetheless, the bench, citing legal precedents, delineated the dichotomy between the “necessity” and “feasibility” of conducting an inquiry, stipulating that authorities may only forgo such proceedings upon substantiating valid grounds for its impracticality.

In the case of Sheikh, the judiciary noted a conspicuous dearth of documented satisfaction by the competent authority. Conspicuously absent from the termination decree was the requisite acknowledgment of the impracticality of conducting an inquiry, as mandated by constitutional provisions. The tribunal cautioned against the dismissal of an employee sans due investigation, deeming it a weighty matter.

“…authority can dispense with the inquiry but after recording satisfaction that there are sufficient reasons which make the holding of an inquiry not practicable. So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent No.3 has miserably failed to record its satisfaction that holding of an enquiry is not practicable due to certain circumstances,” observed the court.

Furthermore, the Court elucidated: “The satisfaction to be recorded by the competent authority that holding of inquiry is reasonably not practicable due to some reason(s) is the constitutional obligation on the part of the competent authority before dismissing or removing or reducing the delinquent employee.”

Emphasizing the constitutional obligation incumbent upon the competent authority to substantiate the impracticality of an inquiry prior to drastic disciplinary actions against an employee, the court nullified Sheikh’s termination due to procedural deficiencies. It enjoined the authorities to reinstate Sheikh within a three-month period, while accentuating the importance of adhering to legal procedures, particularly in cases bearing on public order and national security.

While the mandate for Sheikh’s reinstatement stands, the court clarified that the respondents retain the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against him, provided they adhere to proper legal protocols.