The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 4) slammed Uttarakhand chief minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for disregarding objections from both the State bureaucracy and his own Minister regarding the transfer of an officer facing departmental and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) proceedings.
The court was hearing a case related to Chief Minister's approval of posting an Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officer named Rahul as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve near Haridwar last month.
The court asserted that the situation was not reminiscent of a “feudal era” where the authority of a ruler was unchallenged.
Justice B R Gavai, heading a three-judge Bench, was informed by amicus curiae, senior advocate K. Parameshwar, about several reports—including one from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)—which had raised concerns about the appointment of Indian Forest Service officer Rahul as the Director of the ecologically sensitive Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
"There is something like a public trust doctrine in this country. The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be old days' kings that whatever they have said, they will do," the benched said, quoted PTI.
"We are not in a feudal era," the bench added.
The bench further asked, "Why should the chief minister have special affection for him (the officer)?", adding, "Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?" reported PTI.
Uttarakhand Forest Minister Subodh Uniyal had revised a list of proposed Indian Forest Service (IFoS) transfers to appoint Rahul as the new director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve. However, on July 22, file notes routed through the state's Principal Secretary (Forests) and Chief Secretary requested a reconsideration of this decision.
According to The Indian Express, the file notes requested reconsideration of Rahul's appointment as Rajaji Tiger Reserve director due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, a CBI probe, and a Supreme Court case concerning illegal felling and construction within Corbett Tiger Reserve. Rahul had been removed as Corbett's director in 2022 due to these issues.
After receiving the file notes, Subodh Uniyal on July 24, proposed to retain Rahul in his then-current position as Chief Conservator of Forests (Monitoring, Evaluation, IT, and Modernisation) and to appoint a different officer as the Rajaji director. Despite this, chief minister Dhami approved Rahul's appointment as Rajaji director on August 8.
During the court hearing, Justice Gavai, along with Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, noted that Dhami had provided only a brief explanation for his decision. Justice Gavai criticized Dhami for not offering substantial reasons for overriding the objections from bureaucrats and the minister.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court following a report by the CEC, which oversees compliance with court orders related to forest and wildlife issues. Senior advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the Uttarakhand government, argued that Rahul had not been indicted by any investigative body and that competent officers should not be dismissed based on such allegations.
Justice Gavai countered, questioning why departmental proceedings were ongoing if there were no issues with Rahul. He pointed out that the Chief Minister had disregarded the advice of all concerned parties in this matter.
Uniyal maintained that the decision was made with unanimous consent between him and Dhami. The court considered requesting an affidavit from Dhami but ultimately closed the proceedings after Rahul’s appointment was revoked on Tuesday.
The court was hearing a case related to Chief Minister's approval of posting an Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officer named Rahul as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve near Haridwar last month.
The court asserted that the situation was not reminiscent of a “feudal era” where the authority of a ruler was unchallenged.
Justice B R Gavai, heading a three-judge Bench, was informed by amicus curiae, senior advocate K. Parameshwar, about several reports—including one from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)—which had raised concerns about the appointment of Indian Forest Service officer Rahul as the Director of the ecologically sensitive Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
"There is something like a public trust doctrine in this country. The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be old days' kings that whatever they have said, they will do," the benched said, quoted PTI.
"We are not in a feudal era," the bench added.
The bench further asked, "Why should the chief minister have special affection for him (the officer)?", adding, "Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?" reported PTI.
Uttarakhand Forest Minister Subodh Uniyal had revised a list of proposed Indian Forest Service (IFoS) transfers to appoint Rahul as the new director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve. However, on July 22, file notes routed through the state's Principal Secretary (Forests) and Chief Secretary requested a reconsideration of this decision.
According to The Indian Express, the file notes requested reconsideration of Rahul's appointment as Rajaji Tiger Reserve director due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, a CBI probe, and a Supreme Court case concerning illegal felling and construction within Corbett Tiger Reserve. Rahul had been removed as Corbett's director in 2022 due to these issues.
After receiving the file notes, Subodh Uniyal on July 24, proposed to retain Rahul in his then-current position as Chief Conservator of Forests (Monitoring, Evaluation, IT, and Modernisation) and to appoint a different officer as the Rajaji director. Despite this, chief minister Dhami approved Rahul's appointment as Rajaji director on August 8.
During the court hearing, Justice Gavai, along with Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, noted that Dhami had provided only a brief explanation for his decision. Justice Gavai criticized Dhami for not offering substantial reasons for overriding the objections from bureaucrats and the minister.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court following a report by the CEC, which oversees compliance with court orders related to forest and wildlife issues. Senior advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the Uttarakhand government, argued that Rahul had not been indicted by any investigative body and that competent officers should not be dismissed based on such allegations.
Justice Gavai countered, questioning why departmental proceedings were ongoing if there were no issues with Rahul. He pointed out that the Chief Minister had disregarded the advice of all concerned parties in this matter.
Uniyal maintained that the decision was made with unanimous consent between him and Dhami. The court considered requesting an affidavit from Dhami but ultimately closed the proceedings after Rahul’s appointment was revoked on Tuesday.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment