The Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the state government to reinstate senior IFS officer Rajiv Bhartari as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/ Head of Forest Force (PCCF/HoFF).
He was allegedly transferred previously solely on the basis of a note prepared by the Minister of Forest.
A division bench comprised of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Alok Kumar Verma while granting relief remarked,
“Pertinently, even after the petitioner was transferred out and respondent No. 4 [the current PCCF] has been brought-in as PCCF/HoFF, the matter was not placed before the CSB for post facto approval. Merely because the Minister concerned is one of the members of the CSB that itself does not authorize him to unilaterally take a decision to transfer the petitioner in the manner that he did.”
What is the case?
Rajiv Bhartari, a 1986 batch IFS officer, was promoted to PCCF/ HoFF and assumed command on January 1, 2021. Following that, on November 25, 2021, he was transferred to the position of Chairman, Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board, which is normally held by a Joint Secretary Level Officer. As a result, he appealed the transfer order to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
According to Bhartari’s counsel, the transfer was ordered before the minimum prescribed tenure of two years, in violation of Rule 2(a)(3) of the IFS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014. It was also alleged that his transfer was made without the approval of the Civil Services Board (CSB), in violation of Rule 2(a)(5) of the IFS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014.
Significantly, while quashing the impugned transfer order, the Tribunal stated, “Except for the assertion in the pleading, nothing is on record to show that applicant’s career was blemished or any charge sheet had been served upon him at the time of the impugned transfer order.” If, for the sake of argument, the applicant was not performing his duties well on the post of PCCF (HOFF), then at the very least, the procedure for transfer should have been followed.”
As a result, the CAT ordered the government to reinstate him as PCCF/HoFF.
After the Tribunal ordered, Rajiv Bhartari had to approach the High Court because the respondents did not comply with the order quashing his transfer order and directing his restoration in the said position.
The petitioner sought an order restoring him to his position with immediate effect, as directed by the Tribunal.
It was stated that Bhartari is set to retire on April 30, and that it is critical for him and his reputation that he be reinstated as PCCF/HoFF as soon as possible.
After reviewing the case, the division bench noted that the CAT’s findings that Bhartari’s transfer was based solely on a note prepared by the concerned Minister without following the procedure of referring the petitioner’s transfer to the CSB.
“Given that the Tribunal has found, on the basis of the record, that the petitioner’s transfer was made solely on the basis of a Note prepared by the concerned Minister and without following the statutory procedure,” the bench stated.
It ordered that Bhartari be reinstated to his post immediately.
As a result, the bench barred Bhartari from making any decision on any matter pertaining to the charge-sheet issued to him, and he was ordered not to deal any file or matter pertaining to the charge-sheet.
