In a stinging rebuke, the Supreme Court of India criticised Uttarakhand Chief Minister, Pushkar Singh Dhami for overriding multiple recommendations against the appointment of an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer facing disciplinary action, LiveLaw reported.
The court, on September 4, expressed displeasure at the decision to appoint IFS Officer Rahul (who goes by his first name) as Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve, despite pending departmental proceedings and adverse reports.
The controversy emerged during a hearing related to illegal tree felling and constructions at Jim Corbett National Park. The Court was informed that while disciplinary proceedings were ongoing, Rahul was transferred to the sensitive post, a move that had been widely opposed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Forest Ministry, the Chief Secretary, and other authorities.
A three-judge bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices Prashant Kumar Misra and V.K. Viswanathan, voiced its frustration, stating that the Chief Minister’s decision appeared feudal and arbitrary. Justice Gavai remarked, “We are not in a feudal era, jaisa rajaji bole waisa chale (as the King wishes, so it shall be).”
Despite objections from multiple officials, including endorsements from the Deputy Secretary, Principal Secretary, and the Forest Minister, the CM went ahead with the appointment. Justice Gavai noted that there was a specific directive stating Rahul should not be posted in any Tiger Reserve, given his involvement in a pending CBI inquiry and disciplinary proceedings. Yet, the Chief Minister ignored these warnings.
The issue of accountability for public figures was central to the Court’s commentary. Justice Gavai underscored the principle of public trust, stating, “Heads of public offices cannot do whatever they want. Just because he is CM, does that mean he can act unilaterally?”
The controversy had previously drawn attention when Advocate Abhijay Negi, representing petitioner Anu Pant, filed a writ petition in the Uttarakhand High Court, triggering a CBI investigation into the illegal felling of over 6,000 trees in Jim Corbett National Park. This led to widespread concern about Rahul’s previous role and the political motivations behind his new posting.
Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the State of Uttarakhand, attempted to defend the CM’s decision, arguing that “application of the mind” was involved, though it wasn’t reflected in official notices. Justice Gavai fired back, suggesting the CM should file an affidavit if this were the case. The State later informed the Court that Rahul had been reassigned as Chief Conservator of Forests, IT Department, effectively withdrawing his controversial posting. However, the Court’s stern comments still loom over the decision-making processes in the state’s administration.
Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, also highlighted that multiple reports from different authorities had outlined Rahul’s involvement in disciplinary proceedings, further questioning the CM’s decision to transfer him to Rajaji National Park. Parameshwar remarked, “This was clearly a political decision.”
Justice Gavai emphasized that officers under investigation must be cleared of any wrongdoing before being considered fit for important postings. “Unless exonerated, we cannot consider him a good officer,” Justice Gavai concluded. Despite attempts to downplay media reports, the bench confirmed that the Chief Secretary and Forest Ministry had not recommended the transfer, as had been reported in the press, thus validating the accuracy of the news coverage.
This case, centering on governance, transparency, and environmental responsibility, continues to unfold as the Supreme Court pushes for accountability at the highest levels.
