Archive · 1 Sep 2026
High Court Orders Reinstatement of Jammu Kashmir Bank Officer
A bank officer named Saadut Hussain Pampori was fired after being accused of spreading anti-national messages online.
The Jammu and Kashmir Bank used a rule that allows its top official to dismiss an officer without a regular inquiry in some serious cases.
Pampori said no proper investigation or criminal case had been conducted.
The bank and government said police had quietly investigated and found information against him.
The High Court examined that report.
It said the report did not show that witnesses had been questioned or evidence had been gathered as required.
The court said firing someone without an inquiry is a very serious step.
It therefore ordered that Pampori be reinstated.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered the reinstatement of bank officer Saadut Hussain Pampori.
Pampori was dismissed on July 15, 2024, over allegations of anti-national social media activity.
The court said the bank’s managing director or CEO could not dismiss him without a proper inquiry.
The bank and government said a discreet police investigation produced material linking Pampori to anti-national activities.
The court found the confidential report lacked evidence that witnesses were examined or investigative material was properly collected.
- Who
- Saadut Hussain Pampori, a former deputy general manager of Jammu and Kashmir Bank, and the bank’s managing director or CEO.
- What
- The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ordered Pampori’s reinstatement after finding that he had been dismissed without the required inquiry.
- When
- Pampori was dismissed on July 15, 2024; the court order was reported as issued on Saturday.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court and concerned Jammu and Kashmir Bank.
- Why
- The court held that the bank’s confidential report did not demonstrate a sufficient investigation into allegations that Pampori ran the #TortureKashmir social media campaign.
Court and Officer’s Position
Bank and Government’s Position
Need for an inquiry
Court and Officer’s Position
Pampori argued that dismissal under Clause 12.29 required an investigation establishing his involvement and a recommendation from a competent authority. The court said the bank’s CEO or managing director could not exercise such a drastic power without adequate investigative findings.
Bank and Government’s Position
The bank and government argued that Clause 12.29 permitted dismissal without a departmental inquiry in cases involving alleged terrorist or anti-national activities.
Evidence against Pampori
Court and Officer’s Position
Pampori said no FIR or proper investigation existed. The court found that the confidential report did not show that witnesses had been examined or that material had been collected through an investigation required by the clause.
Bank and Government’s Position
The government and bank said police had conducted a discreet investigation and submitted a report containing material linking Pampori to anti-national activities.
Scope of dismissal powers
Court and Officer’s Position
The court said constitutional authorities such as the President or governor may be trusted with the exceptional power to dismiss without an inquiry in appropriate cases, but that the same level of trust could not be given to a bank CEO or managing director.
Bank and Government’s Position
The bank and government compared Clause 12.29 with Article 311(2)(c), under which the lieutenant governor’s administration has dismissed dozens of employees without departmental inquiries.
- Officer
- Saadut Hussain Pampori, deputy general manager of Jammu and Kashmir Bank
- Dismissal date
- July 15, 2024
- Dismissal rule
- Clause 12.29 of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Officers Service Manual
- Allegations
- Running a #TortureKashmir campaign and creating alleged false narratives against the country’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
- Presiding judge
- Justice Sanjay Dhar
- Outcome
- Reinstatement ordered because the dismissal occurred without an adequate inquiry