Subjective Satisfaction Under Article 311(2)(c) To Dispense With Inquiry For State Security Is Beyond Judicial Merit Review.

The respondent, a Driver Constable in the J&K Police enrolled in 1991, was arrested in 2004 under FIR No. 06/2004 for offenses under Section 120-B RPC and Sections 7/24 of the Indian Arms Act due to alleged involvement in anti-national activities

While a departmental enquiry was initially initiated, the State subsequently invoked Section 126(2)(c) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (pari materia to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India) to dismiss him without a formal enquiry, citing security interests of the State

The respondent challenged this dismissal in SWP No. 683/2007. The Writ Court allowed the petition on 29.04.2011, setting aside the dismissal on the ground that the State failed to justify why the initial enquiry was abandoned in favor of the constitutional exception

The State appealed this decision.

The Court applied Section 126(2)(c) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which allows the dispensation of an inquiry if the Governor is satisfied that it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State

It relied on the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' under Section 124

The landmark precedent Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, which established that "expedient" means advantageous or fit under the circumstances and that reasons for such satisfaction need not be recorded in the dismissal order

A.K. Kaul v. Union of India, which clarified that while judicial review of such subjective satisfaction is limited, it is permissible if the order is viliated by mala fides or based on extraneous grounds

The Court observed that the Writ Court's judgment was "sketchy and seriously flawed" for failing to examine the underlying administrative record

Upon reviewing the contemporaneous files, the Court found a detailed memorandum from the Home Department and a Cabinet-approved report from a high-level committee

This material indicated the respondent’s links with a Pakistani mercenary, the recovery of hand grenades from his premises, and the logistical impossibility of a fair enquiry due to the threat perception to witnesses and the Enquiry Officer in a militancy-affected region

The Court reasoned that "security of the State" is a high threshold involving acts like espionage and secret links with terrorists, and the respondent’s conduct as a member of the police force directly threatened this security

The Court held that the satisfaction was not arbitrary but based on relevant material that justified the "expediency" of dispensing with the enquiry

It held that the Governor’s satisfaction under Section 126(2)(c) was based on sufficient material regarding the respondent's subversive activities and that the necessity to protect privileged witnesses and state security made a departmental enquiry inexpedient

The dismissal order vide Government Order No. 367-GAD of 2007 was upheld