HC seeks unconditional apology from AAG, DC, ADC for misleading court

Srinagar, Feb 13: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Monday directed senior Additional Advocate General (AAG), District Commissioner (DC) and Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Anantnag to file personal affidavits seeking unconditional apology from the court regarding misidentification of officer who had appeared before it.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal directed the AAG along with the officers to file their personal affidavits within a week while posting the matter for hearing on February 28.
The court passed the direction after noting that the statements of both the officers, (DC and ADC Anantnag), who were present in the court, are contrary to the affidavit filed by AAG.
The AAG, when confronted by the court on the said position, sought one more opportunity to file a better affidavit seeking unconditional apology from the court.
He further submitted that the two officers may also be permitted to file an affidavit seeking an unconditional apology from the court.
“Let the personal affidavits be filed by Mr. A. R. Malik, learned Sr. AAG, Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, in terms of the submission made by Mr. A. R. Malik, learned Sr. AAG, with a week’s time,” the court said.
It was stated in an affidavit filed by AAG Malik before the court that there was no intentional suppression of identity of the officer as there was no such reason in view of the facts and circumstances of the case for the DC to evade his presence.
Malik claimed that he had in fact informed the court that the ADC is present with the record since the District Commissioner is dealing with a law an order situation in an anti-encroachment drive initiated by the J&K government.
“I had made the submission twice in the court that the ADC is present in the Court on February 06, 2023 and the case may be taken up for consideration. That the Hon’ble Court called the officer and even at that time the submission was made to the Hon’ble Court that the officer is ADC Anantnag,” he stated in the affidavit.
Malik said that despite all these submissions, if there was any communication gap, he along with two official respondents submits an unconditional apology.
“That it is humbly submitted that DC has sincerely and faithfully discharged his legal and constitutional duty perfectly in accordance with law but due to unavoidable circumstances and faced with an emergent situation, he could not personally present himself in the court and instead deputed ADC alongwith the record who is also the nodal officer under the Migrant Preservation of Property Act in the district,” the affidavit said.
Earlier, the court had sought personal appearance of DC Anantnag on February 06 as he had failed to submit a reply to the case pertaining to a plea challenging eviction order passed by DC Anantnag.
However, instead of DC Anantnag, the ADC, Anantnag, Mohammad Ashraf appeared before the court while concealing his identity.
Taking serious note of this, the court had slammed the officers and AAG for “deliberately misleading” it by concealing the identity of ADC, Anantnag.
The court had sought the appearance of officers with a direction to explain their position and to show cause as to why action as warranted under law be not taken against them.
Justice Nargal also directed AAG Malik to file his personal affidavit explaining as to why he has not brought to the notice of the court that instead of DC, Anantnag, ADC Anantnag, is appearing before the court.
The court had observed that the act on part of ADC, Anantnag is serious and grave in nature and amounts not only to misconduct but also tantamount to contempt of the court and perjury as he has “deliberately and intentionally misled” the court.
The bench had underscored that an advocate also plays an important role in the justice delivery system but the aforesaid act on the part of the senior AAG is “unbecoming.”
It had noted that even the DC, Anantnag, despite the order of the court has evaded his appearance before it and no plausible reason has either been pleaded or brought to the notice of the court for his non-appearance and, “as such, the conduct of the officer of such rank is unbecoming and contemptuous in nature.”