Five More Govt Employees Sacked in Jammu and Kashmir for Suspected Terror Links
By: Javid Amin | 13 January 2026
Inside the Crackdown on the “Terror Ecosystem” and the Debate Over Security vs Due Process
Another Five Names, A Continuing Pattern
The Jammu and Kashmir administration has dismissed five more government employees for alleged links with terrorist organisations, reinforcing a security-driven policy that has reshaped governance in the Union Territory since 2020. With these latest terminations, the total number of government employees removed for suspected terror associations has reached 87.
The dismissals, carried out under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution, bypass standard disciplinary inquiries on grounds of national security. Officials describe the move as part of an ongoing effort to dismantle what they call the “terror ecosystem” embedded within government machinery.
Supporters see the action as essential in a conflict-affected region where infiltration of institutions poses grave risks. Critics, however, warn that repeated use of extraordinary constitutional provisions raises serious questions about due process, transparency, and long-term institutional trust.
This article examines who was dismissed, why Article 311(2)(c) is being used, how the policy has evolved since 2020, and what it means for governance, civil liberties, and security in Jammu and Kashmir.
Who Were the Five Employees Dismissed in January 2026
According to official disclosures, the five government employees dismissed in the latest round belonged to diverse departments, underscoring the administration’s claim that infiltration is not confined to a single sector.
List of Dismissed Employees
-
Mohammad Ishfaq
Designation: Teacher (Rehbar-e-Taleem, later regularised as a government teacher) -
Tariq Ahmad Shah
Designation: Laboratory Technician -
Bashir Ahmad Mir
Designation: Assistant Lineman (Power Department) -
Farooq Ahmad Bhat
Designation: Field Worker, Forest Department -
Mohammad Yousuf
Designation: Driver, Health Department
Officials stated that security agencies established links between these individuals and banned terrorist outfits, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen.
No formal departmental inquiries were conducted prior to dismissal, as the administration invoked constitutional provisions allowing such action in the interest of state security.
Article 311(2)(c): The Legal Tool Behind the Sackings
What the Constitution Allows
Article 311 of the Constitution protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal. However, Clause (2)(c) provides an exception:
If the President or Governor is satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State, the employee may be dismissed without a formal inquiry.
In Jammu and Kashmir, this provision has become a central pillar of the administration’s counter-terror strategy within government institutions.
Why It Is Used in J&K
Officials argue that:
-
Holding inquiries could expose sensitive intelligence sources.
-
Terror-linked employees pose an immediate risk if retained.
-
Conventional disciplinary mechanisms are inadequate in conflict-prone environments.
Since 2020, this rationale has been repeatedly invoked to justify swift removals.
The Bigger Picture: 87 Dismissals Since 2020
The five latest sackings bring the total to 87 government employees dismissed over the past six years. Those removed have included:
-
Police personnel
-
Teachers
-
Health workers
-
Clerical staff
-
Power and forest department employees
The administration insists this demonstrates systemic infiltration attempts rather than isolated incidents.
What Officials Call the “Terror Ecosystem”
According to the official narrative, terror groups seek to:
-
Gain logistical support through government access
-
Use jobs as cover for recruitment and information gathering
-
Influence local populations by exploiting public institutions
Removing suspected collaborators is therefore framed as preventive counter-terrorism, not punitive action alone.
Security Rationale: Why the Administration Defends the Policy
1. Preventing Insider Threats
In sensitive sectors like education, health, and power supply, even minimal insider assistance can have outsized security consequences.
2. Disrupting Long-Term Networks
Officials argue that terror groups invest in long-term institutional penetration, making early and decisive action essential.
3. Signalling Zero Tolerance
The dismissals are also intended to send a clear message:
Government employment cannot coexist with anti-state activity, regardless of rank or department.
Criticism and Concerns: The Due Process Debate
While the administration emphasises security, civil liberties advocates raise serious concerns.
1. No Formal Inquiry
Article 311(2)(c) removes the right to:
-
A departmental hearing
-
Cross-examination
-
Presentation of defence evidence
Critics argue this leaves employees without a meaningful chance to contest allegations.
2. Transparency Deficit
Details of evidence cited by security agencies are typically not made public, fueling concerns about:
-
Potential misuse
-
Errors or misidentification
-
Lack of independent oversight
3. Fear Among Employees
Repeated sackings have created anxiety within government departments, with employees uncertain about:
-
The threshold for suspicion
-
Mechanisms for redress
-
Long-term job security
Impact on Governance and Public Services
Departments Under Strain
The dismissed employees belonged to essential public service sectors:
-
Education: Teacher shortages affect already fragile schooling systems.
-
Health: Drivers and technicians are critical in remote areas.
-
Power & Forest Departments: Technical roles are difficult to replace quickly.
While officials insist replacements will be arranged, short-term disruptions are unavoidable.
Trust Deficit
Frequent security-based dismissals risk creating a climate of suspicion, potentially affecting morale and service delivery.
Political Silence and Strategic Caution
Interestingly, mainstream political parties have largely responded cautiously to these sackings.
-
Few have openly opposed the dismissals, wary of appearing soft on terrorism.
-
Some leaders privately express concern over unchecked executive power.
-
The issue remains politically sensitive, cutting across security and rights.
This silence reflects the narrow political space available for debating counter-terror policies in Jammu and Kashmir.
A Pattern Unique to J&K?
While Article 311(2)(c) exists nationwide, its frequency of use in J&K is exceptional. This reflects:
-
The region’s prolonged insurgency
-
Cross-border militancy
-
Deep security penetration into civil administration
However, constitutional experts warn that normalising extraordinary measures can blur the line between exception and rule.
Security vs Rule of Law: The Central Tension
The dismissals highlight a fundamental dilemma:
-
Can security imperatives justify bypassing procedural safeguards?
-
At what point does expediency weaken institutional legitimacy?
The administration answers firmly in favour of security. Civil society urges a more balanced framework that protects both national safety and constitutional principles.
What Happens Next
Going forward, several developments merit attention:
-
Whether dismissed employees challenge orders in court
-
Whether the administration introduces clearer internal guidelines
-
Whether independent oversight mechanisms are considered
-
How public institutions rebuild trust while maintaining vigilance
The policy trajectory suggests that more dismissals are possible if intelligence agencies continue flagging suspected links.
Conclusion: A Hard Line in a Hard Landscape
The sacking of five more government employees in Jammu and Kashmir is not an isolated act but part of a systematic, security-first governance approach adopted since 2020. With 87 dismissals so far, the administration has drawn a firm line against what it sees as institutional infiltration by terror networks.
Yet, the reliance on Article 311(2)(c) keeps alive an unresolved debate: how to protect the state without hollowing out procedural justice. In a region shaped by conflict and mistrust, the answer will define not just security policy, but the credibility of governance itself.
