Hindustan Times (Jalandhar)

J&K high court initiates contempt proceeding­s against IAS officer

SRINAGAR : Jammu and Kashmir high court on Friday asked an IAS officer to appear in person a day after a sub-judge referred the matter to the HC for initiating criminal contempt proceeding­s against the said officer.

The officer-- deputy commission­er Ganderbal Shyambir- had allegedly attempted to take ‘revenge’ on sub-judge/chief judicial magistrate Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi by initiating inquiry into land owned by him in retaliatio­n against an earlier order in June. The judge had ordered to withhold the officer’s salary for noncomplia­nce of a court order issued with regard to a compensati­on case in June.

The sub-judge, after initiating a preliminar­y inquiry for contempt against the officer last month on July 23, on Thursday referred the matter to high court as the officer “neither appeared before the court nor furnished his reply” despite giving him “sufficient opportunit­ies”.

On Friday justices Sanjeev Kumar and Atul Sreedharan ordered that the notice be issued to the officer to appear before the court on Monday-- August 5, 2024, at 11.00 am.

“This is a reference made under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 2015 made by the chief judicial magistrate, Ganderbal, in criminal reference against Mr Shyambir, deputy commission­er, Ganderbal. Issue notice to the contemnor, Mr Shyambir by Humdast,” it said.

“Any attempt by him to avoid service of summons or his nonappeara­nce shall be viewed seriously by this court and the court shall resort to coercive proceeding­s to secure his presence,” it further read.

The high court also requested senior counsel RA Jan to assist the court as an amicus. “His consent be sought by the Registrar Judicial of this Court,” the order said. Last month, the sub-judge had initiated a preliminar­y inquiry for criminal contempt against the officer for not complying with an earlier order and attempting to attack the judge personally.

Qureshi, in the July 23 order, stated that his previous order “didn’t go well with Mr Shyambir, who attempted to personally attack the presiding officer (the sub-judge) by scandalisi­ng him and weakening him by manipulati­on and fabricatio­n”.

It said that the DC “misused his official machinery and devoted time in tracing out the documents of the property”, which he “lawfully holds” and then a patwari visited his land thrice who told the caretaker of the land that the DC had constitute­d “a team for demarcatio­n of the land of the judge” after he had “passed the order against the deputy commission­er and other higher officers”.