New Delhi: The Uttarakhand government has declined the Central Bureau of Investigation’s request to allow prosecution of a former Corbett Tiger Reserve director for his alleged role in a case involving large scale illegal felling of trees and construction inside the reserved forest area.
The CBI undertook the probe following two separate orders by the Uttarakhand High Court and the Supreme Court. A court can take cognisance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant, only after the appropriate government or authority grants sanction to prosecute them. This sanction has to be taken under the criminal procedure code as well as the anti-corruption law, called the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
Importantly, Uttarakhand government’s stand vis-à-vis its officer Rahul (only goes by first name) contradicts the action it has taken against him on the administrative side. Rahul is an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer working in the state.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the state government conveyed that it had issued a fresh chargesheet against him in July this year, after more information related to the alleged financial irregularities were revealed during an internal inquiry.
In view of this development, the state had withdrawn its previous chargesheet issued to him in September 2022, and in supersession of that a new one was issued against him this year. Rahul has given his response to the internal chargesheet, following which the state has appointed an inquiry officer against him, which is still pending.
However, with regard to the CBI’s request, the state claimed there was no basis for granting sanction for his prosecution. CBI had submitted its report in April this year to the state, while applying for prosecution sanction. Thereafter, legal advice was sought from the legal department and the state view was communicated to the investigative agency on 4 August.
Taking a grim view of the state’s stand, the Supreme Court Monday warned action against its Chief Secretary if it failed to come clear on its decision by next week on the “special” officer.
“This officer appears to be very special to you,” Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai-led bench told Uttarakhand government counsel Abhishek Attrey. The court recalled how last year, the state had posted him as the director of Rajaji Reserve despite his serious involvement in the Corbett case.
In September 2024 too, the top court had pulled up the state over the “tainted” officer’s appointment as Rajaji Tiger Reserve director. This was done even as the top court had in March last year made strong observations against him in its judgment directing a CBI inquiry into the illegal activities inside Corbett.
The Supreme Court order had come on a petition filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who had highlighted the illegal construction of tourist lodges.
The court-appointed expert body, Central Empowered Committee (CEC), had submitted a report supporting Bansal’s stand. It said the proposal for felling of trees at the site of Pakhru Tiger Safari was submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), seeking permission to fell only 163 trees for the 106.16-hectare space approved for establishment of the Tiger Safari.
But a Forest Survey of India (FSI) report from October 2022 estimated that over 3,000 trees were chopped, without statutory permissions, for construction of tourist accommodation facilities and water bodies outside the safari.
Besides Rahul, two more IFS officers are facing CBI probe. Notably, the state has given its permission to prosecute both under the criminal procedure code, and has now written to the central government to give its approval under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The two officers are then divisional forest officers (DFO), Akhilesh Tiwari and Kishan Chand. With regard to both, the CBI had submitted its report to the state on 25 April this year. The state took close to four months to grant the sanction. On 13 August, it forwarded its request to the Centre to allow their prosecution.
The state had also initiated an internal disciplinary inquiry against them. In Tiwari’s case, the state appointed an inquiry officer against him in September this year, more than three years after it started the process. Tiwari had superannuated a day after the inquiry process commenced on 30 May, 2022.
As for Kishan Chand, the state concluded the proceedings in December 2024. In May this year, the state government wrote to the Centre to withhold his gratuity payment and reduce his pension by 30 percent.
The state affidavit also gave an update about its inquiry against another IFS officer, Rajiv Bhartari. The state informed the court that the officer, who superannuated in November 2021, had not responded to the final inquiry report sent to him in September 2024. Finally, in May this year, the state advised the Centre to stop his gratuity payment and give him a provisional pension.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Legal aid, a decade delayed: Uttarakhand convict with psychosis spent 10 yrs in jail without appeal