SC questions Uttarakhand CM
NEW DELHI, Sept 4: Heads of governments cannot be expected to be “old days’ kings” and we are not in a “feudal era”, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, questioning Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing an IFS officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, disregarding the opinions of the state’s forest minister and others.
However, the state government told a bench headed by Justice B R Gavai that the order posting the Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer as the director of the tiger reserve was withdrawn on September 3.
Related Posts:
The bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, was hearing a matter concerning the appointment of IFS officer Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
The 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,” the bench observed, adding, “We are not in a feudal era.”
“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?”
It also observed that a departmental proceeding was pending against the officer concerned.
Pointing out that the noting had said the officer should not be posted at the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, the court said the chief minister “just ignores it”.
“If you disagree right from the desk officer, the deputy secretary, the principal secretary, the minister, then the least that is expected is that there is some application of mind as to why he is disagreeing with the proposal,” it said.
Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, appearing in the court on behalf of the state, 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.”
“If there is nothing, then why are you holding departmental proceedings against him?” the court asked the lawyer, adding 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.
“Only thing which is against him is the disciplinary proceeding where chargesheet is issued to everybody (other officers),” he said.
The bench said, “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 observed.
“The newspaper report says the chief secretary and the minister for forest both objected and in spite of that objection, the chief minister overruled. So nothing wrong in that reporting,” it said.
The bench noted 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.
“In that view of the matter, no orders are necessary. The proceedings are closed,” the apex court said. (PTI)
