DFO Gorakhpur: The RTI Battle Over Forest Department Postings in Gorakhpur

In a functioning democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 empowers citizens as the ultimate tool for accountability. It compels the government to adhere to its own policies. A recent case involving the DFO Gorakhpur and the Gorakhpur Forest Division highlights a troubling trend. Officials use bureaucratic “ping-pong” to dodge uncomfortable questions about transfer policies. They also avoid inquiries about administrative appointments.

The Core Issue: Violation of the Transfer Policy(DFO Gorakhpur)

The heart of the dispute lies in the posting of Mr. Jagdamba Pathak. He is a Deputy Ranger. He has reportedly held the charge of the Baki Range for over three and a half years.

The appellant, Yogi M P Singh, states that this prolonged tenure is in direct violation. It goes against the established transfer policy of the Uttar Pradesh government. Furthermore, the appellant raises a significant governance concern. He questions why a junior-rank officer is holding a senior-rank position for such an extended duration. This is especially concerning when qualified personnel are available.

The “Information Carousel” (DFO Gorakhpur)

The RTI journey in this case reveals a classic example of administrative evasion. When the appellant sought information:

1. The State Level: The Department of Forest in Lucknow transferred the RTI to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Gorakhpur.
2. The Local Level: The DFO Gorakhpur claimed the information was “not related” to their division. They also stated that the justification for the posting was not “information” as per local rules.

This creates a paradox. The local office claims they can’t answer because the state makes the appointments. However, the state office refuses to answer by pushing the query back to the local level.

Legal Contradictions: Section 4(1)(d) vs. Local Rules

A pivotal point in this appeal is how the court interprets “information.” The Public Information Officer (PIO) invoked the UP RTI Rules 2015. They claimed they do not need to provide “justification” for administrative actions. This statement includes their decision regarding the DFO Gorakhpur.

However, the appellant rightly points to Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005, which mandates that:

“Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.”

The blog argues that local state rules cannot override or act “ultra vires” to the central RTI Act. Transparency is not just about providing data; it emphasises providing the logic behind government decisions.

Summary of the Appeal (DFO Gorakhpur)

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Court S-9) will hear the appeal scheduled for July 7, 2025. The appellant aims to dismantle these flimsy grounds for denial. The appellant’s stance is clear:

• Junior officers holding senior posts indefinitely undermines the hierarchy and integrity of the Forest Department.
• The “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of a sound judicial and administrative system.
• Evading RTI queries through jurisdictional technicalities is a disservice to Good Governance.

Conclusion

As this case heads to the Information Commission, it stands as a litmus test for the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. Will the Commission hold the Forest Department accountable for its lack of transparency, particularly the DFO Gorakhpur? Or will bureaucratic technicalities continue to shield administrative irregularities?

In the context of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department, the situation you described is highly irregular legally. It is also highly irregular administratively. Moreover, It is rare for a Deputy Ranger to hold the charge of a Ranger on a “work charge” basis. It is also rare on an “officiating” basis for over four years.

According to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Forest Service Rules and general government transfer policies, here is the breakdown of why this is problematic:

1. The Legal Limitation on “Officiating” (Ad-hoc) Charge and DFO Gorakhpur must learn it.

A Ranger assigns the current duty charge to a Deputy Ranger. A Deputy Ranger temporarily fulfils the duties of a Ranger. This occurs during cases of emergency or lack of staff. The Ranger position is of higher rank. This arrangement serves as a temporary “stop-gap”.

• The Three-Year Rule: Under the standard Transfer Policy of Uttar Pradesh, the government promulgated a new transfer policy. Government employees should not remain in the same post for more than three years. The policy encourages employees to rotate positions. This is especially true for those in executive or field roles. Examples include a Ranger or DFO Gorakhpur. Keeping an officer for four years violates the state’s spirit of transparency and rotation.
• Work Charge vs. Promotion: Giving a “work charge” is not a formal promotion. A Deputy Ranger is performing the duties of a Ranger for 4 years. It is without a formal promotion order, suggests a “mockery of the law.” This is because, as you mentioned, it bypasses the formal promotion quota. It also bypasses seniority lists. “mockery of the law,”

2. Rank Requirements for Range Officers (DFO Gorakhpur)

The Indian Forest Act, 1927, specifically Section 68, restricts certain legal powers for officers. These powers are for those not below the rank of a Ranger within a Forest Range. The Forest Range acts as an executive unit.

• If a Deputy Ranger (a junior officer) acts as a Ranger for a long time, challenges may arise. These challenges concern their legal authority. Over time, others may question this authority. Individuals might challenge it in court concerning specific forest offense cases or compounding fees. This situation occurs because they do not substantively hold the rank required by the Act. Additionally, DFO Gorakhpur may be involved in overseeing such issues.

3. Violation of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act

As you highlighted in your appeal, the department’s refusal to provide a “reason” for this long-term temporary arrangement violates Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005, which states:

“Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.”

The PIO’s claim is that they do not have to provide “justification.” This is often a tactic to hide the lack of a valid administrative reason.

4. Summary for your Hearing (July 7, 2025)

When you present your case to the Information Commission, you can focus on these three key points:

• Administrative Failure: If there are vacant Ranger posts, why hasn’t the government filled them in 4 years? They could have done it through regular promotion or recruitment.
• Policy Violation: The 4-year stay exceeds the standard 3-year transfer limit and the “temporary” nature of a work-charge assignment.
• Illegal Concealment: The department is transferring the RTI between Lucknow and Gorakhpur. This action engages in “Information Refusal by Redirection.” The Commission has the power to penalize this.
  • DFO Gorakhpur: Responsibilities include overseeing forest conservation and management in the Gorakhpur district.

Based on your case details and the official records of the relevant departments, here are the essential contact details. You will also find web links you will need for your hearing and future follow-ups.

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the primary authority for your hearing on July 7, 2025.

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/8b240c
• Email (Court S-9): hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• General Helpline: 0522-2724930
• Address: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.

2. Uttar Pradesh Forest Department (Headquarters)

Since the PIO Sanjay Kumar Dixit (CCF) transferred your RTI here, these are the high-level contacts for accountability.

• Official Website: upforest.gov.in
• PCCF (HoFF) Office:
  • Email: pccf-up@nic.in
  • Phone: 0522-2206168 / 0522-2207982
• CCF (Administration/Gazzetted): ccfadmgaz-up@nic.in
• Address: 17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, UP – 226001.

3. Gorakhpur Forest Division

The officers you mentioned in your appeal regarding the posting of the Deputy Ranger are as follows.

• DFO Gorakhpur Office:
  • Email: dfogorakhpur@gmail.com or dfogorakhpur@yahoo.co.in
  • Phone/Fax: 0551-2333108
• Chief Conservator of Forests (Gorakhpur Mandal):
  • Email: ccfgr-up@nic.in
  • Phone: 0551-2204640

4. Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation (UPFC)

You included the Managing Director in your CC list; here is their direct information.

• Official Website: upforestcorporation.co.in
• Managing Director (MD) Email: md@upfc.in
• Phone: 0522-2716609
• Address: Aranya Vikas Bhawan, 21/475 Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

---

Important Reminder for Your Hearing

Please attend your hearing from 12:30 PM to 02:00 PM on July 7, 2025.

1. Technical Check: Log in to the online link 10 minutes early.
2. Evidence Ready: Keep the PDF document ccfgorakhpur.pdf open.The DFO admitted that the Deputy Ranger remains in charge because no Ranger has been posted.
3. Core Argument: Emphasize that “Information Denied” is illegal under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

I can draft a 5-minute speaking script for you to use during the online hearing. This script will ensure that you cover all these points.