Outraged by ‘Arbitrary Transfers’ of Corbett’s Illegalities, IFS Agents in Ukhand Approach State Association IFS, Alleging Service Rules Violated | Dehradun News


Dehradun: After Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami ordered the transfer of 30 forestry officers – including the Chief of Forest Forces, Chief Wildlife Custodian and Senior Chief Forestry (Wildlife) Custodian – Due to alleged illegalities in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, IFS officers on duty from the Hills State approached the Uttarakhand IFS Officers Association, claiming that the reshuffle was “completely arbitrary” and in violation of the service rulebook.
The complaints include the fact that while the Center has 113 sanctioned IFS officer positions under Uttarakhand, after the recent reshuffle some of these positions were filled by officers from the Provincial Forest Service ( PFS) or “promoters” (forest at the level of the personal state who has climbed the ranks). IFS agents further stated that they were thrown into the state deputy without their consent and that PFS agents were given important responsibilities of territorial forest divisions in their place. They also allege that promotions with “questionable” work histories have received major assignments.
Incidentally, Corbett’s Kalagarh Tiger Division, where several illegalities have been confirmed by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), was previously under the jurisdiction of Division Officer Kisanchand, a “promoter”, and has now been handed over to another non-IFS officer. Even the new PFS officer deployed to Kalagarh was fined Rs 8 lakh for felling trees in “non-compliance with approvals”.
In addition, AK Gupta was put in charge of the circle of Shivalik, known for its rich flora and fauna. This despite Gupta’s suspension for “financial irregularity” after the findings of an investigation by IFS whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi, as TOI reported in February 2020. Similarly, another official, D Thirugyansambadanam, was charged with the crucial matter. Haridwar division, neglecting the investigations against him.
IFS agents also claim that the transfers violate the 2013 Supreme Court order in the TSR Subramanian Vs Union of India case. The SC then declared that IFS officers should have a guaranteed minimum period of assignment.
IFS Association of Uttarakhand President Kapil Lal said: “We have received a number of written complaints and expect more from aggrieved officers. We will collect these concerns and address their grievances to the Public Services Commission. ”
Asked about the matter, Forestry Minister Harak Singh Rawat said: “In 2013, a bad decision was probably taken in the TSR case. There is no such thing as frame or non-frame. How can a person be labeled as a non-manager even after having spent 20 years of service? How can you deduce your seniority and experience? I am not questioning the knowledge of new IFS agents, I am just saying that the experience has its own meaning. In addition, the state can transfer as it sees fit. The civil service council recommends assignments, but ultimately that is the government’s decision. ”
On the issue of giving “crucial” positions to civil servants with “bossy” professional backgrounds, the minister said: “For us all divisions are sensitive and like everyone else, civil servants can continue to work unless their guilt is not proven. If we pay them wages, we will take their services.



Comments are closed.