Muttil tree-felling case: Junior forest officers face heat after court rejects chargesheet

Wayanad: The Forest Department has sought explanations from two Beat Forest Officers (BFOs) who were assigned court duty after the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery, rejected the chargesheet filed by the department in the Muttil tree-felling case.

The two BFOs are junior-level officials who primarily assist in liaison between the court and the Forest Range Office. According to Forest Department sources, the court officer had brought certain anomalies in the chargesheet to the attention of the BFOs on September 22. However, the information was not conveyed to the Range Forest Officer in time. The chargesheet was subsequently returned by the court on September 25.

The action against the BFOs has raised questions within the department over whether junior officials who merely facilitate communication between the court and the Range Office should be held responsible for defects in a chargesheet whose preparation and approval involve senior officers.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery, had returned the chargesheet submitted by the Forest Department in connection with the illegal felling and transportation of rosewood in the Muttil tree-felling case, citing several deficiencies. These included the absence of crucial supporting documents, procedural lapses, numerous clerical errors and failure to properly complete confiscation proceedings relating to the vehicle allegedly used for transporting the illegally felled timber.

The court also pointed out shortcomings concerning the delay in filing the chargesheet. The Forest Department had failed to submit a proper explanation for the delay and had not filed an appropriate petition seeking condonation of the delay, among other deficiencies. The court also noted the absence of certain supporting documents and shortcomings in the investigation.

Who is responsible for the chargesheet?
According to Forest Department officials, the BFOs assigned to court duty primarily act as a link between the court and the Range Office. They carry documents to the court, receive communications and convey feedback from the court to the concerned officers.

The substantive responsibility for the Form-II forest offence chargesheet, however, rests with the Range Forest Officer (RFO), who is responsible for preparing and submitting its contents after the investigation and necessary departmental scrutiny.

Similarly, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) has a role in finalising the prosecution-related documents, including Form C, the prosecution sanction, before they are submitted before the court.

Against this backdrop, the decision to seek explanations only from the two BFOs has triggered questions among officials and those closely following the case about the accountability of officers who were responsible for preparing, scrutinising and approving the documents.

The Forest Minister Shibu Baby John has ordered a departmental inquiry into the circumstances that led to the rejection of the chargesheet. The inquiry is expected to examine how the chargesheet was prepared, scrutinised and submitted, as well as whether the deficiencies pointed out by the court could have been detected and rectified before the document was filed.

The inquiry is also expected to examine the failure of the officials concerned to properly monitor the court proceedings and communicate the deficiencies brought to their notice.

Senior officials yet to face action
Interestingly, no action has so far been reported against the senior officials who were responsible for preparing and finalising the chargesheet.

Former South Wayanad DFO A Shajna, who had closely monitored the court proceedings in the Muttil tree-felling case, was transferred while A K Saseendran was the Forest Minister during the previous LDF government.

South Wayanad DFO Ashique Ali told Onmanorama that explanations had been sought from the two BFOs and that they had already submitted their replies.

Asked about the responsibility of senior officials who monitor court proceedings and oversee prosecution-related documents, Ashique Ali said that, as per the departmental procedure, the Range Forest Officer is responsible for the contents of the chargesheet submitted before the court, while the DFO is responsible for finalising the contents and giving the go-ahead for prosecution.

“The BFOs are only aides in the process, and they have already submitted their explanations,” he said. On the rejected chargesheet, Ashique Ali said that the anomalies were rectified and already resubmitted.

The departmental inquiry is now expected to establish whether the deficiencies that resulted in the rejection of the chargesheet were attributable to lapses at the level of the court-duty staff, or whether responsibility also lies with officials involved in preparing, scrutinising and approving the prosecution documents.