j-k-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-policeman-accused-of-militant-links

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a police constable accused of alleged ties with militants and involvement in anti-national activities, setting aside a 2011 single-bench judgement.

A division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar allowed the appeal filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs Ghulam Mohammad Tantray (LPAW No. 268/2011), stating that authorities rightfully invoked Section 126 (2) (c) of the erstwhile Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir in the interest of the security of the state.

The government was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri. As per the judgement, Ghulam Mohammad Tantray, who joined the police department in 1991, was arrested in 2004 in connection with FIR No. 06/2004 registered at Police Station Zadibal, Srinagar, on allegations of involvement in anti-national and militant-related activities.

 

While a departmental inquiry had initially been launched against him, the government later dispensed with the inquiry and ordered his termination from service.

 

Back in 2011, the single judge had quashed the inquiry and dismissal on the ground that the departmental inquiry was called off midway.

The government, while challenging the verdict, had argued that conducting a full inquiry would have compromised sensitive security interests and exposed witnesses and officials to serious threats.

Following evaluation of the official records, the division bench found sufficient grounds to support the government’s decision.

The court noted that the respondent was allegedly in contact with a Pakistani militant and had arranged a hideout for him and that searches conducted during the investigation led to the recovery of arms, ammunition, and hand grenades.

Referring to settled constitutional principles governing Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India and its J&K equivalent, the court held that while such decisions are subject to judicial review, courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the government’s subjective satisfaction unless the action is shown to be mala fide or based on irrelevant considerations.