Uttarakhand High Court: Reiterating the Supreme Court’s remarks on how administrative actions cannot be at the diktat of the political class, the Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday sought a detailed report on the transfer of a range officer that was allegedly initiated following a letter by a local politician.
Asking the Secretary of Forest, C Ravishankar, how the government can be in the “hands of a gram pradhan”, the division bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Subhash Upadhyay said, “How many times has the Supreme Court said that administrative actions cannot be at the diktat of the political class?”
The court was referring to the Supreme Court’s remarks from last week when it was hearing a matter on the alleged irregularities during the tenure of Rahul, an IFS officer, as the Corbett Tiger Reserve director.
The petitioner in the case before the High Court, range officer Hemant Bisht, has claimed that he was transferred to Rudraprayag Forest Division without any responsibility for any range in a “highly stigmatic order on administrative grounds”. He alleged that any complaint letter has to be accompanied by an affidavit and supporting evidence, but the complaint made against him was “only on the letterhead of a political party”.
The forest department, he claims, still took it seriously and called for an investigation into his conduct, and a report was submitted in three days without his perspective. He was transferred from Badrinath to Rudraprayag in an order on September 12. The petition also says he was working towards the preparation of the Nanda Devi Raj Jat Yatra and had furnished various proposals from all stakeholders and the public for work plans to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO).
He claimed that the DFO asked him to break up the works into proposals of Rs 5 lakh each and to prepare only estimates of roads. He said that it was difficult to undertake the necessary works in such small parts and informed the DFO of this. He further alleged that some people with political influence, “who wanted the petty contract work and wanted to pressure the petitioner into financial irregularities, started approaching the high and mighty in the government as well as in the forest department, complaining against the petitioner (Bisht)”.
The Secretary of Forest said that a proper enquiry was conducted after the letter from the politician, after which the PCCF made the decision.
Story continues below this ad
The court asked him whether the 2011 order by the High Court had been complied with. The 2011 order had directed that the disciplinary rules do not authorise attachment of an employee in contemplation or in the course of disciplinary action.
The Secretary said that the order had more to do with the delay in work committed to by the officer. The court said that the direction of the DFO to “split” the work was violative of the procurement rules.
“We are concerned about the future of administration in the department. The Apex Court had made it very clear that the political class cannot dictate any decision, especially with the forest department. The entire Godavarman and MC Mehta… otherwise, there would be no forest department today. The kind of degradation of forests and the rate at which it was taking place. Please appreciate those efforts,” the bench said.
The Principal Secretary has stated that a detailed report will be filed.
