Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Haryana Cadre, who joined the State , in September, 2005, after the
completion of training at IGNFA, Dehradun, where he got two
medals from President of India for excellence in the training. In the
state the officer was deliberately kept without any posting for whole
one year despite availability of cadre posts, being illegally occupied
by non – cadre officers in blatant violation of IFS Cadre rules.
During his first posting as DFO (Kurukshetra), he stopped illegal
transportation and habitat destruction by influential contractors
associated with a canal construction, through Saraswati Wildlife
Sanctuary, which was one of the largest protected area of region,
housing many rare floral and faunal species , most prominent being
the hog deer. An F.I.R. was also got registered against the persons
associated with above construction, for poaching of Hog deer, by
the officer. However the then Chief Wildlife Warden, Mr. R.D. Jakati
(who is now Director , IGNFA, Dehradun), acting under the pressure
, ordered to allow this illegal transportation through sanctuary,
though it was in blatant violation of section 27 – 29 of Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972 (under which only five activities – tourism ,
scientific research, photography, investigation into wildlife and lawful
trade with a person residing in a wildlife sanctuary is allowed in side
a sanctuary and habitat destruction is strictly prohibited), section 26
of India Forest Act, 1927 (trespass and damage to reserve forest)
and Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 14.2.2000 and
24.11.2005 (which strictly prohibited all activities inside a wildlife
sanctuary except above five) in CWP No. 202/1995 (Godavarman
Vs. Union of India). The officer complied with his orders but as a
punishment, he was immediately shunted to a remote station called
Fatehabad in May, 2007. In July, 2007, he was served a warning
from state government for his 'misconduct' in preventing the illegal
transportation and habitat destruction, the representation against
which is still pending. In Fatehabad, the officer found that huge
amount of public money was being spent, for development of a
Herbal Park on the private land, belonging to influential persons
claiming closeness to then Forest Minister, Ms. Kiran Chaudhry,
without getting its ownership transferred to the forest department
and in violation of PCCF, Haryana letter no. 69-74 dated 26.4.2005
(which directed to develop the Herbal Park on Govt. / Forest land).
The officer reported the matter to higher authorities, but he got
threatening calls and PCCF, Haryana, in his letter dated 12.07.2007,
citing the clear annoyance of the Forest Minister, on account of
stopping the work, ordered to continue the work. The officer again
sent the compliance report, along with his leave application.
However overlooking both compliance reports and the illegalities
involved , the officer was placed under suspension by state
government on 3.8.2007. The suspension order did not mention any
specific grounds and when the officer applied under RTI Act, 2005,
for file notings, he was denied the information citing the section 8(h)
of the act on the ground that the matter is still under investigation.
The officer got the notings only after the intervention of the State
Information Commission, which passed severe strictures against
PCCF, Haryana, for his interference in providing information to the
officer. No mandatory detailed report was sent by state
government to central government in this case, as required under
section 3.(6A) of AIS (Discipline and Appeal) rules, 1969 neither it
replied to the repeated reminders of the later, hence central
government, in an unprecedented move, for the first time in the
history of Haryana revoked the suspension order, noting the failure
of Haryana Govt. to sent any document/comment in support of
suspension order and terming the very grounds of suspension as
unjustified. The applicant was served with a charge-sheet ,
immediately after the suspension, under major penalty, on
14.09.2007, mainly on these two grounds, which was promptly
replied on 5.10.2007. Even after the revocation of suspension, the
charge-sheet was not withdrawn.