High Court Upholds Policeman’s Dismissal
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has recently affirmed the dismissal of a police constable accused of maintaining connections with militants. The decision, delivered on May 30 by a Division Bench consisting of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, endorsed the removal of the constable without a full departmental inquiry, given the prevailing security circumstances in the region.
Court’s Observations on Security Concerns
The Bench emphasized the critical nature of maintaining national integrity against threats posed by external proxies. “The integrity and sovereignty of the country have continually been endangered by adversaries using various strategies to incite terror and dissatisfaction within the Valley,” they noted. The judges highlighted that militants often enlist security personnel, suggesting that the constable in question had potentially been compromised.
Details of Allegations Against the Constable
Ghulam Mohammad Tantray, the constable in question, was accused of associating with a Pakistani militant and facilitating a hideout, where two hand grenades were discovered. Although a departmental inquiry was initially launched in 2004, the administration opted to bypass this process, securing the Governor’s consent to dismiss Tantray under Section 126 (2)(c) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which mirrors Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Legal Proceedings and Rulings
The decision to forego a departmental inquiry was based on concerns that witnesses and officials involved might face threats, rendering the inquiry impractical. Despite this, Tantray contested his dismissal in 2007. A single-judge Bench initially ruled in his favor in 2011, citing insufficient justification for dispensing with the inquiry.
The Jammu and Kashmir administration appealed this decision. The Division Bench, upon reviewing the material evidence, criticized the single-judge’s ruling as insufficient, reinstating the dismissal on grounds that the allegations posed a significant security threat. The Division Bench concluded that the state had substantial grounds to bypass the inquiry, acting within constitutional parameters.
Representation
During the hearings, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri represented the administration, while Tantray was represented by Senior Advocate Syed Faisal Qadiri, with assistance from Advocates Mir Adhan Zahoor and Salih Pirzada.
