‘DEFIANCE’: CAT directs top SKUAST authority to showcause why he will not face contempt

Srinagar, Aug 31: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has directed the Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST) Kashmir to file compliance with regard to its order putting on hold transfer of Dr Abdul Shakoor Bhat as Head of the Division of Veterinary, Pharmacology and Toxicology Sohama Srinagar to the Faculty of Agriculture, Wadoora in district Baramulla.

A division bench of M S Latif Member (Judicial) and Prasant Kumar Member (Administrative) also directed Dean Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Shuhama to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings are not initiated against him in view of “averments” of Dr Bhat’s contempt plea.

Dr Bhat has filed a contempt plea alleging non- compliance of the order dated August 19, 2025 wherein the tribunal directed the SKUAST-K authorities to file reply to his plea challenging his transfer order as also the status report as to whether the order had been passed by the incompetent authority,” arbitrarily and with mala-fide intentions”. The tribunal had also ordered that Dr Bhat be not relieved till the next date of hearing.

As the Contempt plea came up, Advocate Bhat Fayaz, counsel for the petitioner sought the attention of the Court to certain averments in the plea. The Counsel argued that Dr Bhat in order to continue his duties in light of the directions of the court filed an application before the Dean seeking Restoration of his Biometric attendance.

He Contended that the height of the matter was that the Dean vide an order dated August 21, 2025 directed Dr Bhat to resume his duties at his new place of posting at Wadoora as he stood already relieved. “Even the Dean conveyed verbally to the applicant (Dr Bhat) that the applicant has committed an error as the Vice Chancellor of SKUAST-K is not subordinate to the Central Administrative Tribunal nor the Central Administrative Tribunal can call the Vice Chancellor before the court. Therefore, it is better for the applicant to resume his duties at Wadoora”, read the contempt plea. The Court noted that the contempt plea is supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Dr Bhat and the averments made in it are affirmed to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

The Court observed that the contents as made in the contempt plea need to be specifically rebutted by Riaz Ahmad Shah, Dean, Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Shuhama who is a party contemnor in the instant plea.

While the tribunal noted that “certainly, the respondents have a right to defend themselves, it said: “However, this Court is concerned with the implementation of its orders in letter and spirit, as the Contempt of Courts Act has been enacted for securing confidence of the people in the administration of justice”.

After issuing notice on the contempt plea, S M Ayoub, counsel for contemnors, accepted the same. He was directed to file his Statement of Facts and compliance report by September 3. Moreover, the tribunal directed Dean Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Shuhama to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings are not initiated against him in view of the averments made in the contempt plea which is supported by an affidavit.

The Court ordered that the contempt plea be listed along with the main case on September 3, and in the meanwhile, directed the SKUAST to implement the order dated August 19 passed by the court in its letter and spirit. In his main plea before tribunal, Dr Bhat is seeking court’s intervention to quash and set aside the SKUAST’s order dated August 12 related to his transfer. He pleads that his transfer followed his enforcement of disciplinary action against a student who was found guilty of “unfair means” during an examination and that he was deliberately excluded from a related inquiry committee contrary to varsity regulations.

According to Dr Bhat’s plea, the disciplinary committee’s lenient punishment conflicted with mandatory rules and his objections led to his punitive transfer, which was “unauthorized, arbitrary, and mala fide as it was signed by an incompetent authority”.