Bengaluru: In a significant setback for the state government, the Centre has declined to consider the suspension proposal issued against senior Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer R Gokul (1997 batch), citing procedural lapses, including a delay in submission and failure to provide a detailed report on the case.
The state government had suspended Gokul, an officer of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF) rank, on June 4, pending an inquiry into his alleged unauthorized legal action. However, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) refused to admit the proposal due to non-compliance with required protocols.
Background: Alleged Unauthorized Plea Before Supreme Court
The controversy stems from a 2020 interlocutory application filed by Gokul and three other bureaucrats – two IFS and one IAS officer – in the Supreme Court, seeking the denotification of 443.6 acres of forest land previously allotted to the Centre-owned PSU HMT in the Peenya-Jalahalli plantation area of Bengaluru.
The officers allegedly acted without ministerial approval or placing the matter before the state cabinet, triggering strong reactions and leading to Gokul’s suspension. The move was viewed as a breach of service rules and violation of procedural hierarchy.
Unconditional Apology & Minister’s Recommendation for Revocation
In the latest development, Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre confirmed that R Gokul has submitted an unconditional apology regarding the incident. Following this, Khandre wrote to the Chief Secretary, recommending revocation of the suspension while suggesting demotion of the officer from the APCCF rank to Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) rank as a disciplinary measure.
“The Chief Secretary informed me that the officer has expressed unconditional regret. In such a case, it’s an acceptance of wrongdoing. I’ve recommended that his suspension be revoked and he be demoted accordingly,” Khandre told media.
Centre’s Refusal: A Procedural Blow
Sources in the forest department said the Centre’s refusal was a procedural setback. According to All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, state governments must provide comprehensive documentation while recommending suspension of All India Service officers. The omission of detailed case reports and the timing of the proposal led the Centre to decline further action.
What’s Next?
With the Centre stepping back and the state considering a softer stance in light of Gokul’s apology, the case may now end with a formal demotion and internal memo, rather than prolonged legal or disciplinary action.
The incident, however, underscores the tensions between procedural accountability and bureaucratic discretion, especially when it involves judicial interventions without executive sanction.
