Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Van Kshetradikari Sangh & another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 145 of 2016
Decided On : 10-03-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Kumar
For the State-Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht
Subordinate officers must comply with lawful orders of superiors, especially when it pertains to statutory duties and public interest.
Headnote:
Forest Range Officers - Implementation of Government Order - Indian Forest Act, 1927, Sections 65, 68(3); Uttar Pradesh Trees Protection Act, 1976, Sections 13, 14; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an association of Forest Range Officers, sought enforcement of a government order directing the appointment of Forest Range Officers against vacant posts and relieving Deputy Forest Range Officers. The Deputy Officers were found to be working in violation of various acts including the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Uttar Pradesh Trees Protection Act, 1976, and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subordinate officers had defied the government order without any valid reason, leading to administrative chaos and harming public interest. The court directed the due implementation of the government order and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the defying officers.
Issues: Enforcement of government order, disobedience of lawful order, statutory duties of Forest Range Officers
Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate officers must comply with lawful orders of superiors, especially when it pertains to statutory duties and public interest.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to ensure the implementation of the government order. Disciplinary proceedings were to be initiated against the defying officers.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
“Key facts”, necessary for adjudication of this petition, are that the petitioner no.1 is association of Forest Range Officers of the Forest Department of the State of Uttarakhand. It is duly recognized by the State Government.
2. According to the averments made in the petition in the year 2013-14, there were 13 Forest Circles, 44 Forest Divisions and 284 Forest Ranges in the entire State of Uttarakhand. Out of 284 Forest Ranges, 244 Forest Ranges have been categorized as Territorial Forest Ranges and 40 Forest Ranges have been categorized as Non-Territorial Ranges (functional). The “Territorial Range” means the Range which consists of Reserved and Protected Forest Area. The terminology “Non-Territorial Range (Functional)” means the Range which has been formed to look after and execute the work related to forestry and soil conservation.
3. There are 199 Forest Range Officers in the State as per the final seniority list published on 09.10.2015. The Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment, Government of Uttarakhand had issued a Government Order dated 05.09.2013 in respect of posting of the Forest Range Officers of the Forest Department against the vacant posts. The gist of the order is that all the Deputy Forest Range Officers, who have been given the charge of the Ranges and holding the same, were to be immediately relieved and Forest Range Officers alone were to be posted against these posts. The Deputy Forest Range Officer could only be posted in the eventuality arising due to scarcity of the Forest Range Officer.
4. The Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration), Uttarakhand issued a communication to the Chief Conservator of Forests, calling upon him to comply with the directions contained in the letter of the Principal Secretary dated 05.09.2013. Similarly, reminders have also been issued from time to time to comply with the letter dated 05.09.2013. The representation was also made by the association on 23.07.2015, seeking enforcement of letter dated 05.09.2013.
5. It is also highlighted in the representation that Sections 65, 68 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 13 and 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Trees Protection Act, 1976, provides that certain action under the said Acts can only be undertaken by the Forest Range Officers. The Deputy Forest Range Officers were also working in National Parks and Sanctuaries in violation of the provisions of Wildlife Conservation Act, 1972.
6. The petitioner no.1, Association has also sought information under the Right of Information Act. It was informed that in many Divisions, the Range charge has been given to the Deputy Forest Range Officer, whereas the regularly promoted Forest Range Officers have been posted in the functional (Non-Territorial) Divisions contrary to the letter dated 05.09.2013.
7. The reply, surprisingly, has been filed only by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. The gist of the reply filed by the respondent no. 3 is that in Kumaun Zone, 39 Forest Range Officers are available, who are posted in 13 Forest Divisions. Out of these, 21 Forest Range Officers were posted in Territorial Ranges and 10 Forest Range Officers were posted in the post of sanctioned Forest Range Officers in Soil Conservation Forest Division. There are 100 sanctioned posts of Forest Range Officers in Kumaon region, but due to scarcity of Forest Range Officers, the Deputy Forest Range Officers have been given charge of the range to manage the functioning of the range. The reason assigned for the post of Deputy Forest Range Officer is that they are more energetic and young. It has also been stated in the reply that necessary instructions have been issued to the subordinates to comply the order dated 05.09.2013.
8. Similarly, in the reply filed by the respondent no. 4, it has been stated that the available number of Forest Rangers in the Garhwal Zone has also been reduced drastically due to the fact that the posts were not filled up by way of direct recruitment. The Deputy Ranger
