Article 311(2)(c) dismissal is valid where relevant material shows an inquiry would endanger security sources.

The applicant, a Junior Assistant in the Public Works (R&B) Department, challenged his dismissal under Government Order No. 974-JK(GAD) of 22 September 2021.

He alleged that he had been dismissed without a departmental inquiry or hearing, despite his assertion that he was not named in a charge-sheet and had previously been reinstated.

The respondents stated that a CID dossier and a committee recommendation supported dismissal under Article 311(2)(c), citing allegations that the applicant had assisted Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists and explaining that an inquiry could expose confidential intelligence sources and endanger their lives.

The applicant had earlier obtained an order directing the authority to decide his representation, after which he was reinstated; the dismissal followed approximately three months later.

Whether the applicant’s dismissal without a departmental inquiry was justified under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution on the ground that holding an inquiry was not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

Whether the dismissal warranted interference because of the applicant’s claimed exclusion from a charge-sheet, his prior reinstatement, or an alleged absence of relevant material or valid reasons.

Article 311(2) ordinarily requires an inquiry and a reasonable opportunity to defend against charges, but its second proviso, clause (c), permits dispensing with an inquiry where the constitutionally designated authority is satisfied that holding one is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

Under A.K. Kaul v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 73, such a decision is subject to judicial review for mala fides or reliance on considerations unrelated to State security; relevant material must be placed before the Court, although a legally sustainable claim of privilege may justify withholding it from the employee while allowing judicial examination.

The Tribunal considered the respondents’ case to involve specific allegations of assistance to terrorists through food, shelter, and transportation, supported by intelligence inputs, rather than the mere registration of an FIR; if supported by the material before the competent authority, such conduct was directly connected to State security.

The applicant’s claim that he was omitted from a charge-sheet did not displace the respondents’ reference to a separate NIA charge-sheet naming him as an accused, and the Tribunal did not determine his criminal guilt.

Nor did the earlier reinstatement or the prior direction to decide his representation preclude subsequent constitutional action.

The stated concern that an inquiry could expose confidential sources and endanger their lives addressed the expediency of holding an inquiry; the Tribunal found no established mala fides or reliance on wholly irrelevant considerations.

It dismissed the Original Application, rejected the claims for reinstatement and consequential benefits, vacated any interim order, and disposed of pending miscellaneous applications without costs.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the service action and would not affect the criminal proceedings.