The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that heads of governments cannot be expected to be “old-time kings” and we are not in a “feudal era”.
Along with this, the court also raised questions on Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing an IFS officer as the director of ‘Rajaji Tiger Reserve’, ignoring the opinion of the Forest Minister of Uttarakhand and others.
However, the state government told the bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra and Justice KV Vishwanathan that the order appointing the Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer as the director of the sanctuary was withdrawn on September 3. The bench was hearing the case related to the appointment of IFS officer Rahul, former director of ‘Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve’, as the director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
The court said that there was a special noting from the first officer that Rahul should not be appointed as the director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve and it was also approved by the deputy secretary, principal secretary and the state forest minister. The bench said, “There is some principle like public trust in this country. The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be the kings of the old days who will do whatever they are told.” The court also said, “We are not in the feudal era.”
The bench asked, “Why should the Chief Minister have special affection towards him (the officer)?” The apex court also said, “Just because he is the Chief Minister, can he do anything?” It also said that departmental proceedings are pending against the concerned officer.
Pointing to the observation made in the ‘noting’ that the officer should not be posted in the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, the court said the chief minister was “simply ignoring it”.
The court said, ‘If you disagree with the desk officer, deputy secretary, principal secretary, minister, then at least it is expected that consideration should be given as to why they disagree with the proposal.’
Senior advocate A N S Nadkarni, appearing for the state government, told the court that there was no FIR lodged against the (concerned IFS) officer by the state police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The advocate said that the disciplinary proceedings against the officer pertain to the Corbett Tiger Reserve, where several officials were issued ‘show cause notices’.
Nadkarni said, “He is a good officer. Actually, someone else is targeting him.” He said, “You cannot sacrifice a good officer against whom there is no case.”
The court asked the counsel, “If there is nothing, why are you taking departmental action against him?” It said that unless there is prima facie evidence, departmental proceedings are not initiated against anyone.
The court said, “The Chief Minister has acted against the advice of everyone.” Nadkarni said that neither the police nor the investigating agencies like CBI and ED nor the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) have held the officer guilty. He said, “The only thing that is against him is the disciplinary proceedings in which all (other officials) have been chargesheeted.”
The bench said, ‘Unless he is acquitted in departmental proceedings, you cannot give him a certificate of good officer.’ During the hearing, the bench also referred to a newspaper report which said that the Forest Minister and Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand had objected to the appointment of the concerned officer as the Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
The bench said, ‘You created the impression that the news in the newspaper is not correct. When we saw the noting, we did not find any error in the news in the newspaper. Whatever has been reported in the newspaper is factually correct.’
‘The newspaper report said that both the Chief Secretary and the Forest Minister raised objections and despite those objections, the Chief Minister overruled it. So there is nothing wrong in that report.’ The bench said that Nadkarni has placed before it a copy of the September 3 order issued by the state government, under which the order appointing Rahul as the regional director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve was withdrawn. The apex court said, ‘In view of this, no order is required. The proceedings are closed.’
The post Supreme Court got angry on a decision of Chief Minister sahab, said- If he is the Chief Minister, can he do anything… appeared first on .