Contempt case: Ganderbal DC appears before J&K HC, asked to file reply by Aug 12

Ganderbal deputy commissioner Shyambir on Monday appeared before the Jammu and Kashmir high court in person in a criminal contempt case with the court giving him till August 12 to file his response the next day of the hearing.

The IAS officer was summoned by the high court on Friday to appear in person a day after the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) of Ganderbal had referred the matter to the HC for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the said officer.

On Monday justices Sanjeev Kumar and Atul Sreedharan said, in order, that pursuant to the Friday’s order the DC appeared before the court in person.

“This Court apprised him about the reference forwarded to this court by the learned CJM, Ganderbal, and the charge levelled against him. To this, the contemnor’s reply has not been done intentionally to demean the Court,” the order said.

The justices gave the officer time to file his reply and asked Shyambir to be present in the court on the next day of the hearing.

“The office is requested to forward the reference made by the learned Judge of the District Judiciary, Ganderbal to the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal today itself in order to give him an opportunity to file his reply to the said charge levelled against him by the learned CJM, Ganderbal,” the order said.

The case

The case dates back to January when CJM Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi passed an order in a compensation case. When the orders were not complied with, in June CJM Qureshi ordered to withhold the officer’s salary for non-compliance of a court order.

The CJM then referred the matter to the high court as the officer “neither appeared before the court nor furnished his reply” despite getting “sufficient opportunities”.

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.”