J&K Govt Disengages Three Jal Shakti Workers Over Alleged Anti-National Activities
By: Javid Amin | 09 March 2026
Administration cites security concerns; action reflects continuing “zero-tolerance” policy in government services
J&K Government Disengages Three Jal Shakti Workers
The administration of Jammu and Kashmir has disengaged three workers from the Jal Shakti Department, citing alleged involvement in anti-national activities.
According to an official order issued on March 9, 2026, the employees were removed from service with immediate effect after authorities determined that their conduct was “not in consonance with government service rules and detrimental to public interest.”
The decision forms part of the administration’s broader policy of taking strict action against government employees suspected of activities linked to militancy, subversive networks, or organizations banned under Indian law.
Officials described the move as consistent with the region’s security-first administrative approach, which has seen multiple dismissals and disengagements across departments in recent years.
Worker From Anantnag Identified in Order
Among the individuals named in the official order is Showkat Ahmad Zargar, a resident of Iqbal Mohalla, Bijbehara in Anantnag district.
Zargar was employed as a Daily Rated Wager (DRW) in the Jal Shakti Department’s Bijbehara division, where he had been performing field-level duties related to water supply infrastructure.
Details Mentioned in the Order
-
Name: Showkat Ahmad Zargar
-
Father’s Name: Nazir Ahmad Zargar
-
Residence: Iqbal Mohalla, Bijbehara
-
District: Anantnag district
-
Position: Daily Rated Wager (DRW)
-
Department: Jal Shakti Department
The order directed that his services be disengaged immediately, effectively terminating his employment and ending his entitlement to wages.
Two Workers From Kishtwar Also Disengaged
Along with Zargar, the government also disengaged two other workers from the same department.
They were identified as:
-
Liyaqat Ali Bhagwan
-
Kousar Hussain Bhagwan
Both individuals were reported to be residents of Kishtwar district.
While details regarding their specific roles were limited in the publicly circulated order, officials indicated that the disengagement was based on adverse security reports.
Authorities did not publicly disclose the full nature of the allegations but stated that the action followed the standard administrative process used in cases involving suspected security concerns.
Allegations of Anti-National Activities
The official order stated that the workers were disengaged because of alleged involvement in anti-national activities.
According to officials, such allegations typically arise from:
-
intelligence agency reports
-
police investigations
-
registered criminal cases
In some instances, employees may also face FIRs under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or other security laws.
While the government did not release specific case details, the order noted that retaining the workers in public service would be “against public interest.”
What Disengagement Means
Unlike regular government employees, many workers in departments such as the Jal Shakti Department serve as Daily Rated Wagers (DRWs).
This category of employment is typically contractual or temporary in nature.
Disengagement in such cases means:
-
immediate termination of work
-
cessation of wages
-
loss of service benefits
-
removal from departmental rolls
Because DRWs are not permanent employees, administrative action can often be implemented more quickly compared to disciplinary proceedings involving permanent civil servants.
However, affected individuals can still challenge such decisions through legal proceedings in courts.
Broader Security Policy in Jammu & Kashmir
The disengagement of the three workers reflects a broader policy pursued by the administration in Jammu and Kashmir over the past several years.
Authorities have repeatedly taken action against government employees suspected of having links with militant groups or activities considered detrimental to national security.
The policy gained prominence after the reorganization of the region in 2019, when the former state was converted into two Union Territories.
Since then, the administration has adopted a strict approach to internal security within government institutions.
Officials argue that government offices must remain free of individuals suspected of supporting militant networks.
Legal Basis for Dismissals
In cases involving permanent government employees, the administration has sometimes invoked Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India.
This constitutional provision allows the government to dismiss a public servant without conducting a formal departmental inquiry if such action is deemed necessary in the interest of national security.
How the Process Typically Works
-
Intelligence agencies compile dossiers about suspected individuals.
-
The Home Department reviews the security assessment.
-
Recommendations are sent to the concerned administrative department.
-
The department issues termination or disengagement orders.
Officials say this process ensures swift action when security concerns arise.
Previous Cases of Government Employee Dismissals
The latest disengagements are part of a broader trend observed in recent years.
2025 – Education Department
Several teachers in government schools were dismissed after authorities accused them of spreading radical ideology or maintaining links with banned organizations.
2024 – Police and Security Services
Some constables and Special Police Officers were terminated following allegations that they were sharing sensitive information with militant networks.
2022–2023 – Civil Administration
Employees working in departments such as revenue and health were dismissed after intelligence agencies submitted reports alleging links to anti-national activities.
These cases were often justified by the administration as necessary measures to safeguard the integrity of public institutions.
Debate Over Due Process
Actions taken against government employees over alleged anti-national activities often spark debate in Kashmir.
Concerns Raised by Critics
Civil society groups and some political leaders argue that:
-
reliance on intelligence dossiers may lack transparency
-
employees should be allowed a fair hearing
-
dismissals without inquiry risk undermining due process
Legal experts have also questioned whether the use of extraordinary provisions should remain limited to exceptional circumstances.
Government’s Position
Authorities maintain that such steps are essential to prevent infiltration of militant sympathizers into government institutions.
Officials argue that in a region with complex security challenges, swift administrative action is necessary to protect public safety and maintain institutional integrity.
Impact on Local Communities
For the workers involved, disengagement carries immediate and significant consequences.
Loss of employment affects not only the individuals but also their families, especially in areas where government work—whether permanent or temporary—is a primary source of income.
In districts such as Anantnag district and Kishtwar district, government employment remains one of the most stable forms of livelihood.
As a result, such actions often attract attention and discussion within local communities.
The Administration’s Message
Officials say the latest disengagement sends a clear message about expectations from government employees.
The administration has repeatedly emphasized that individuals serving in public institutions must maintain complete loyalty to the Constitution and the law.
Authorities believe that removing individuals suspected of anti-national activity helps strengthen trust in public institutions and ensures that government departments operate without security risks.
Conclusion
The disengagement of three workers from the Jal Shakti Department, including Showkat Ahmad Zargar from Anantnag district, underscores the continuing security-focused approach adopted by the administration in Jammu and Kashmir.
While the government describes the action as necessary to protect public institutions, critics continue to raise questions about transparency and due process.
As security concerns remain a defining aspect of governance in the region, such administrative measures are likely to remain a recurring feature of the political and administrative landscape.
