We are not in feudal era, said the Supreme Court on Wednesday as it came down heavily on Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing an IFS officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, ignoring the opinions of the state's forest minister and others.
The Supreme Court Bench - headed by justice BR Gadvai and also comprising Justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan - was hearing the issue of illegal constructions and tree felling at the Jim Corbett National Park of Uttarakhand. During the hearing, the top court was informed that while departmental proceedings were pending against the Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Rahul, he was appointed to the post of Director at Rajaji National Park.
What SC Told Uttarakhand Govt
The bench led by Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Misra and VK Viswanathan noted that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had opposed 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.
The bench asked why the chief minister should have "special affection" for the officer.
"Why should the chief minister have special affection for him [the officer]?" the bench asked, adding, "Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?"
The Uttarakhand government told the bench that the order posting the IFS officer as the director of the tiger reserve was withdrawn on September 3.
'We're Not In Feudal Era': SC
The Supreme Court observed that there was a specific noting right from the first officer, which was endorsed by the deputy secretary, the principal secretary and also by the state's forest minister that Rahul should not be posted as the director of the 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," news agency PTI quoted the bench's observation. The bench added, "We are not in a feudal era."
What Utrarakhand Govt Told SC
Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, appearing in the court on behalf of the Uttarakhand government, said the officer was not facing any FIR lodged either by the state police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The lawyer said the disciplinary proceeding against the officer was related to the Corbett Tiger Reserve where several officers were served show-cause notices.
"He is a good officer. In fact, somebody else is targeting him," Nadkarni said, adding, "You cannot sacrifice a good officer against whom there is nothing."
'Don't Give Him Good Officer Certificate'
On the above, the court asked the lawyer: "If there is nothing, then why are you holding departmental proceedings against him?" The court added that unless there is some prima facie material, departmental proceedings are not initiated against anyone.
"The chief minister has gone against the advice of everyone," it observed.
Nadkarni said neither police nor probe agencies like the CBI and the ED nor the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has blamed the officer.
When the lawyer said "the only thing which is against" the officer "is the disciplinary proceeding where chargesheet is issued to everybody", the bench responded, "Unless he is exonerated in the departmental proceeding, you cannot give him a certificate of a good officer."
During the hearing, the bench also referred to a newspaper report, which said Uttarakhand's forest minister and chief secretary had objected to the appointment of the officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
"You gave an impression that the newspaper reporting is not correct. When we saw the noting, there is no error in the newspaper reporting. Whatever is reported in the newspaper is factually correct," the bench said.
Noting that Nadkarni has placed on record a copy of the September 3 order issued by the state government by which the order posting Rahul as the field director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve was withdrawn, the top court closed proceedings in the matter saying that no orders are necessary.
