CAT pulls up KU over ‘communication’, orders corrigendum

Srinagar, Nov 13: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar observed as “uncalled for” a communication that warned an employee of the University of Kashmir (KU) to desist from making representations related to his regularization.

“Prima facie, it appears that although the respondent No 7 (Assistant Registrar (AR), General Administration, University of Kashmir) was within his competence to have disposed of the representation of the petitioner, however, the reference as made in the impugned communication informing the petitioner to desist from submitting further representation, was uncalled for,” a Division Bench comprising M S Latif, Member (J), and Prasant Kumar, Member (A), said in its order.

The bench noted that it was inclined to proceed against the said Assistant Registrar but given the candid submission of KU’s counsel and the statement made by the AR in the open court that he would issue a corrigendum to the communication in question, a lenient view was taken in the matter.

The AR in terms of the communication addressed to the petitioner Siraj Bala in response to his representation dated September 2, 2024, regarding the regularisation of his services against the suitable post, informed him that given the dismissal of his petition by the High Court of J&K, his request was not maintainable.

“Desist from submitting further representations on the matter, failing which it will be construed that the official is resorting to practices or conduct which is likely to result in the substantial retardation of routine work in the organisation,” the communication said.

Bala had challenged the communication through senior advocate Bashir Ahmad Bashir primarily, on the ground that the language used in the communication showed the highest prejudice and bias being harboured by the KU against him only for the reason that he had approached the court for redressal of his grievances.

It also said that this fundamental right cannot be taken away from any citizen by anybody, not to mention the AR.

While the tribunal underscored that although the AR was within his competence to have disposed of the representation of the petitioner, it said, “Discipline cannot be imposed in a monarchical manner and same has to be in consonance with rules and regulations and having due regard to the constitutional safeguards.”

The directions came after AR who was before the court in person submitted that he would issue a corrigendum to the communication within two weeks.

However, he also submitted that issuance of the communication in question was, in no way, intended to stop the petitioner from moving any representation, if required.

The court ordered to list the matter for consideration on November 27, 2024, before it's Registrar who, it said, shall keep the bench informed as to whether the corrigendum had been issued within the stipulated period or not.