This RTI appeal raises critical questions about accountability in the Forest Department. Furthermore, it exposes a clear pattern of administrative opacity. Consequently, procedural evasion continues to undermine public trust.

---

The Shadow Forest: Accountability in the Forest Department and Its Departmental Postings

Accountability in the Forest Department is crucial for effective management of natural resources. It ensures transparency in decision-making processes, promotes responsible stewardship of forests, and fosters community trust. By holding individuals and teams accountable for their actions, the department can enhance conservation efforts and mitigate environmental impacts, ultimately benefiting ecosystems and communities alike.

An RTI Appeal Exposes a Crisis of Accountability in the Forest Department of Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, remains the citizen’s most powerful tool for demanding transparency and accountability in the Forest Department. However, citizens face administrative resistance on the path to obtaining clear information. Moreover, procedural delays and incredible reports block progress at every turn. As a result, urgent questions arise about whether accountability in the Forest Department is truly being upheld.

Yogi M P Singh filed a recent RTI appeal (Registration Number PCCFO/A/2025/60044) against the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HOD, Uttar Pradesh. The appeal reveals a troubling practice: a Deputy Ranger has held an ‘acting’ Ranger charge for over four years. Therefore, this case is a stark reminder that accountability in the Forest Department cannot be treated as optional. Indeed, it is both a constitutional and a statutory obligation.

---

The Four-Year Gap: A Case of ‘Alternative Arrangement’

At the core of this matter stands Shri Jagdamba Pathak, a Deputy Ranger. Notably, he has held the charge of the Banki Range Ranger for an extraordinary duration.

When the original RTI application was filed, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of Gorakhpur Division provided an explanation. Significantly, this explanation is both illuminating and deeply problematic. The DFO’s report stated:

“As far as Shri Jagdamba Pathak, Deputy Ranger, remaining in charge of Banki Range is concerned, it is mentioned in this regard that the posting of a Ranger is done at the government level. Due to the Ranger not being posted at the Banki Range post from the government level, Shri Jagdamba Pathak, Deputy Ranger, has been kept in charge of Banki Range as an alternative arrangement from the higher level.” (Accountability in Forest Department)

This assertion deserves justifiable scepticism: a critical post has remained vacant for four years. Furthermore, a subordinate officer fills it as a mere temporary measure. In fact, Yogi M P Singh directly challenges the credibility of this report. He questions why the original request was subsequently transferred to departmental functionaries — the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the HOD — if the matter truly rested with the government. One of the most compelling arguments in the appeal concerns the alleged violation of the ‘Right to Reason’. As the appeal rightly notes, this right forms an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. Moreover, the RTI Act itself codifies this right.

Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, mandates that every public authority shall:

“provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

Here, the DFO’s report cites an “alternative arrangement.” However, it provides no recurring reasons for a four-year vacancy. Nor does it explain why Shri Jagdamba Pathak was chosen to continue. Therefore, true accountability in the Forest Department demands that every administrative decision — especially one of this duration — be justified with clear, documented reasoning.

---

The Core Questions Seeking Clarity

The applicant’s appeal revolves around five key questions. Together, these questions aim to reveal the specifics of departmental postings and vacancy management: (Accountability in Forest Department)

1. Vacant Rangers: The names and current posting details of Rangers who currently hold no Range charge. This information is critical, as it helps determine whether the department deliberately underutilises its personnel.
2. 2. What is the precise administrative reason for assigning Deputy Ranger Jagdamba Pathak as Ranger for such a long period? Does this comply with the “Right to Reason” requirement?
3. Supervisory Personnel: The names and designations of the public personnel at the government level who supervise and finalise the postings of Rangers, as the DFO claimed that the posting is done by the government.
4. 4. Are there any demand letters from the local office requesting that higher authorities fill the vacant Banki Range Ranger post? Can copies of these letters be provided?
5. 5. What is the current cadre strength: total sanctioned Ranger posts, the number of current Rangers, and Deputy Rangers filling Ranger posts? How severe is the vacancy situation?

---

Accountability in the Forest Department is Not Optional

The situation highlighted by this RTI appeal goes beyond a simple administrative anomaly. In fact, it exposes deep-rooted systemic issues:

• Impact on Efficiency: An officer who holds an ‘acting’ charge for such an extended period often lacks full authority, responsibility, and compensation of the higher post. As a result, this gap directly impacts both efficiency and morale within the Range.
• Corruption Allegations: The appeal explicitly states that authorities are overlooking corruption allegations. Although the RTI Act concerns information, the pattern of prolonged ad hoc appointments creates fertile ground for administrative malpractice. Consequently, this pattern demands serious scrutiny.
• Procedural Evasion: The initial response, deflecting responsibility to the ‘government level,’ and the subsequent transfer of the RTI, suggest a possible attempt by the Public Information Officer (PIO) to violate Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which requires the provision of information within thirty days or a prompt and proper traThe DFO’s comment that Rangers’ postings are solely a ‘government-level’ job does not absolve the Department’s internal functionaries from their obligations. Instead, accountability in the Forest Department is a shared responsibility. The department must manage its vacancies and ensure the efficient deployment of its staff. Above all, it must provide citizens with truthful and reasoned explanations for its enduring administrative decisions.

The outcome of this appeal will be a defining test of accountability in the Forest Department. Ultimately, the Chief Conservator of Forests Administration must choose a clear path. Will it uphold the spirit of the RTI Act and compel the public authority to provide reasoned, factual data? Or will the ‘Shadow Forest’ of bureaucratic opacity continue to obscure the truth?