'We Are Not In Feudal Era' : Supreme Court Questions Uttarakhand CM On Rajaji National Park Director Appointment

The Supreme Court today (September 4) expressed displeasure at the decision of the Uttarakhand Chief Minister to appoint Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Rahul (who uses his first name only) as Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve overlooking the pending disciplinary proceedings and the adverse reports against him.

The Court was hearing the issue of illegal constructions and tree felling at the Jim Corbett National Park. During the hearing, the Court was informed that while departmental proceedings were pending against the IFS Officer, he was appointed to the post of Director at Rajaji National Park. 

The bench led by Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Misra and VK Viswanathan noted that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had objected to the posting of Chief Conservator of Forest Rahul to Rajaji National Park from Jim Corbett, yet the Chief Minister proceeded to allow the posting despite multiple recommendations by the Forest Ministry, Chief Secretary and CEC against it. 

However, the Court recorded that on September 3, the State of Uttrakhand withdrew the earlier posting of the IFS officer as the Director of Rajaji National Park and that he is now posted as Chief Conservator of Forest - IT department elsewhere. 

During the hearing, the Court took serious exception to the CM's decision.  Justice Gavai expressed : 

 "We are not in a feudal era, jaisa rajaji bole waisa chale(that things will happen only as the King's wishes). When all the subordinate authorities pointed out to the notice of the Chief Minister, he (CM) just ignores it and says no."

"If you disagree- right from the desk officer, deputy secretary, principal secretary, the minister, the least expected is, there should be some  application of mind...”

Justice Gavai observed that multiple endorsements were there from various authorities not to post the officer in Tiger Reserve Areas. 

“There is a specific note to the Deputy Secretary that the departmental proceedings are initiated against him, that he CBI inquiry is there, therefore he should not be posted anywhere in the Tiger Reserve.That is endorsed by the Deputy Secretary, that is endorsed by the Principle Secretary,that is endorsed by the Forest Minister, and this is all ignored by the Hon'ble Chief Minister" 

At this juncture, the Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni appearing for the State said "application of the mind would be there, it's just not reflected in the notice that's all." 

Justice Gavai reverted  saying "you file an affidavit of the Chief Minister then".  

The Court however did not pass any orders with respect to the Chief Minister.

Justice Gavai however verbally expressed the need for public heads to show accountability for their decisions 

"There is something like public trust doctrine in this country, the heads of the public offices cannot do whatever they want. When the endorsements are there that he should not be posted there, despite of that, just because he is a CM he can do anything?

Notably, the CEC Report objecting to Rahul's transfer was based on a complaint filed by Advocate Abhijay Negi representing petitioner Anu Pant. Pant had filed a writ petition before the Uttrakhand High Court over the illegal felling in Jim Corbet. The High Court subsequently ordered a CBI probe into the felling of 6000 trees at the National Park.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate K Parameshwar submitted that apart from the CEC Report, there are 4 other reports by different authorities, which state that the IFS Officer was charge-sheeted in 2022 and became part of disciplinary proceedings which are still pending. While the proceedings were pending, the officer was transferred from Jim Corbett Park to Rajaji National Park. He also pointed out the Civil Services Board never recommended the posting of the DFO. 

Parmeshwar remarked, "They are trying to make a saint out of him....Despite there being no recommendations (by the Civil Services Board) this decision was taken, this was a political decision that was taken." 

Nadkarni submitted that the IFS Officer was a 'good officer' and there was nothing against him so far as per the CBI probe. He contended that 'good officers should not be lost' just because there is a departmental proceeding pending against him.

Justice Gavai however said, "Unless there is prima facie material, departmental proceedings will not be initiated."

He further added that for him to be considered as a good officer, he has to come clean in the pending proceedings.

"Unless he is exonerated from the departmental proceedings, then only we can say he is a good officer"

Referring to few newspaper reports, the Senior Counsel also contended that the media is wrongly reporting the issue.

To which Justice Gavai remarked that the newspapers have not any wrong reporting, as it is clear from the noting that the Chief Secretary and Forest Ministry had not recommended the officer's transfer. 

"The new paper reports say that the Chief Secretary and the Minister both objected, when we saw the notings, there is nothing wrong with the news report"  

Case Title: IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995