Forest dept targets officer for RTI disclosure amid illegal tree felling inquiry

Jaipur: In a controversial move, top Rajasthan forest department officials have initiated proceedings against Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) and Public Information Officer (PIO) Gazanfar Ali Zaidi for sharing inquiry-related documents under the RTI Act in connection with an illegal tree-felling case in Bhilwara.

Sources said the disclosed documents later formed the basis of a court case, after which the National Green Tribunal directed recovery of about Rs 1.31 crore as environmental compensation from eight forest officials and a private individual.

Instead of fixing accountability and acting for the alleged illegal removal of Prosopis juliflora from nearly 250 hectares of forest land, officials are scrutinising the PIO, accusing him of violating provisions meant to protect ongoing investigations.

RTI activist Rajendra Tiwari said, “The department is targeting dutiful officials and shielding officers involved in illegal felling. At the time when the documents were sought, the preliminary report was already filed. Why do senior officials want to hide the information, and why is there a delay in action against the guilty officials?”

Official communications accessed by TOI show that the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Rajasthan, termed the disclosure “prima facie” contrary to provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that may impede an ongoing investigation.

Subsequently, the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) issued a show-cause notice to Zaidi asking why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. A reminder notice was later issued after officials claimed that no reply had initially been received within the stipulated period.

CCF Ram Karan Khairwa told TOI, “A show-cause notice was issued regarding furnishing information under the RTI Act, 2005, without obtaining approval from the competent authority before forwarding information related to rules or policy decisions. Also, the information was provided when the inquiry was pending.”

A senior official, on the condition of anonymity, said, “The district in-charge who was appointed for the inquiry had already submitted the preliminary report.”

In his written response, Zaidi defended the decision, stating that information under the RTI Act is required to be furnished within 30 days and that the documents were provided in discharge of official duties. He further stated that the information was shared only after discussions with and directions from the then CCF, Jaipur, Rajeev Chaturvedi.

A source said, “Under the RTI Act, 2005, the PIO is independently empowered to provide information. In case of any dispute or objection regarding furnishing of information, the competent authority for resolution is the Information Commission.”