Article 311(2)(c) permits dispensing with inquiry when relevant material makes it inexpedient in the interest of State security.

The applicant, a J&K Police constable promoted to Selection Grade Constable, challenged Government Order No. 548-JK(GAD) of 2022 dated 13 May 2022, which dismissed him under Article 311(2)(c) without a departmental inquiry.

He relied, among other things, on his acquittals in two criminal cases.

The respondents alleged that he had links with Over Ground Workers and militants and had disclosed information about police personnel involved in an anti-militancy operation.

They stated that a government committee and the competent authority considered security-related material and concluded that an inquiry would risk exposing confidential sources.

The applicant sought to have the dismissal order set aside and to be reinstated with consequential benefits.

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

2. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the competent authority’s satisfaction in light of the applicant’s acquittals and his challenge to the material and reasons supporting dismissal.

Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution permits dispensing with a departmental inquiry where the President or Governor, as applicable, is satisfied that holding one is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

Under Union of India v. Balbir Singh, (1998) 5 SCC 216, judicial review of such a decision is limited: a court or tribunal does not sit in appeal over the competent authority’s satisfaction, but may examine whether the decision is mala fide or founded wholly on extraneous or irrelevant grounds.

An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not, by itself, invalidate action under Article 311(2)(c) where relevant security-related material was before the authority.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ case was not based solely on the earlier FIRs: it included allegations of the applicant’s contacts with persons linked to militant activity and disclosure of information about police personnel involved in an operation.

It accepted that the committee considered whether an inquiry could safely be held and that disclosure of sensitive human-intelligence sources could endanger them.

The competent authority had the committee’s recommendation and supporting material before it and recorded its satisfaction; the Tribunal found no basis to conclude that the decision was mechanical, mala fide, or founded wholly on irrelevant considerations.

The applicant’s acquittals did not determine the Article 311(2)(c) question, which concerned the competent authority’s security-based satisfaction rather than proof of criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It dismissed the Original Application and upheld the dismissal order dated 13 May 2022; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.