Supreme Court Junks Madhya Pradesh Order On Review Of Forest Officers By IAS officials

The Supreme Court on Wednesday called it "contemptuous" and quashed a Madhya Pradesh government order stipulating that Indian Administrative Service officers will review the performance appraisal reports of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers in the state.

Madhya Pradesh, it came on the record, followed a practice in which IAS officers -  district collectors or superior officers - recorded the annual confidential reports of IFS officers.

A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine Goerge Masih was dealing with petitions asking whether Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers were the "reporting, reviewing and accepting authority" for IFS officers.

The top court said the June 29, 2024 government order (GO) was in total violation of the directions of the top court, including in its September 22, 2000, order.

"We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned GO is rather contemptuous in nature inasmuch as the said GO which is in violation of the aforesaid orders of this court dated September 22, 2000 and... has been issued without even seeking clarification/modification of this court," the verdict penned by the Chief Justice said.

On September 22, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the reporting authority had to be an immediate superior officer within the forest department for officers up to the rank of additional principal chief conservator of forests.

Only in the case of the principal chief conservator of forests, the top court said, the reporting authority would be a person other than the one belonging to the forest service as there was no one superior to them within the IFS.

On Wednesday, the bench observed that, except Madhya Pradesh, all other states were scrupulously adhering to the directions issued by the top court in the September 2000 order.

Noting it could have proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers responsible for issuance of such a GO, the bench said, "However, we refrain ourselves from doing so. The said GO being in violation of the directions of this court is liable to be quashed and set aside." The top court then quashed the GO and directed the Madhya Pradesh government to reframe the rules within a month by strictly adhering to the directions issued by the top court in September 2000.

"It appears that, while other states were adhering to the practice wherein the 'reporting authority' and the 'reviewing authority' belonged to the same service, with the 'reporting authority' being immediately superior to the officer being reported upon, and the 'reviewing authority' being the authority supervising the performance of the 'reporting authority', the state of Madhya Pradesh was not following this established practice," it noted.

The bench pointed out the practice followed by Madhya Pradesh was not correct.

While it had no doubt, if necessary, states could ask collectors and commissioners to record their comments on a separate sheet on the performance of IFS officers over the implementation of developmental work funded by the district administration, the same was "required to be considered by a superior departmental officer of the IFS".

Referring to the GO, the bench also noted the relevant part provided that before evaluating the performance of the divisional forest officer (territorial), the conservator or chief conservator of forest concerned would seek a note from the district collector.

The Department of Personnel and Training had clarified in September 2004 that the top court's September 2000 order was applicable to forest officers working within the forest department and was not applicable to forest officers working outside the department, it added. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)