Sathyamangalam
forest division is best known for Veerappan’s exploits. A forest
officer wanted to clean things up, but the area MLA had different ideas
 |
Sorry,
not at your beck and call: Sampat Lal Gupta |
| |
It’s a lonely
battle for Gupta, who hails from Ranchi, Jharkhand, and lives
with his wife and five-year-old daughter |
The fate of Indian
Forest Service (IFS) officer Sampat Lal Gupta underscores once again
how tough it is to be an honest bureaucrat in India. Gupta claims that
he has been transferred to a “punishment posting” because
he refused to take orders from LP Dharmalingam, the DMK MLA who represents
Sathyamangalam constituency in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. Tehelka has
a taped telephone conversation between Gupta and Dharmalingam, which
bears out Gupta’s version of the events (see the adjoining transcript).
A 1997-batch officer,
Gupta served as District Forest Officer (DFO) in the Sathyamangalam
forest division between October 24, 2005 and July 17, 2006. Gupta claims
that Dharmalingam constantly kept making demands about transfers and
postings of officers in his division. When Gupta refused to oblige,
he was appointed to a “dummy post” as divisional forest
officer, social forestry, Madurai.
As the DFO of Sathyamangalam,
Gupta says, he was trying to improve things as the forest division had
gained notoriety because of poacher and sandalwood smuggler Veerappan’s
activities. He took steps to curb corruption and booked Special Task
Force (STF) personnel when they were caught felling trees.
Gupta’s no-nonsense
approach earned him many enemies. “The MLA (Dharmalingam) was
putting tremendous pressure on me, repeatedly, over the phone many times,
as well as in writing, about transferring certain people. The ones he
recommended had bad track records. I could not post such people in ‘sensitive’
places.”
According to Gupta,
Dharmalingam’s interference became “unbearable”. “He
wanted to put his own men in sensitive check-posts. He wanted a list
of the staff posted at check-posts. I asked him to submit the requests
in writing, but he didn’t.” Gupta says there are seven check
posts in Sathyamangalam division, all of them “sensitive from
the wildlife point of view, and forest wealth, including sandalwood.”
In a case related
to the transfer of a forest guard, Dharmalingam did write to Gupta.
In the letter on the MLA’s letterhead, he requests Gupta to transfer
one Natarajan, a forest guard, from the KN Palayam check-post and replace
him with one Thirumurthy. The MLA was particular that Thirumurthy be
posted in KN Palayam and, according to Gupta, pursued the matter with
him many times. Check-post duty is considered lucrative as there is
ample scope for corruption in the form of ‘route fees’ collected
from passing vehicles. Forest guards often collect the amount without
issuing receipts.
Gupta says he told
Dharmalingam that there were several complaints against Thirumurthy,
and that he had been chargesheeted by Gupta’s predecessor. Thirumurthy
had allegedly connived with poachers and given his rifle to some people,
which was recovered later by the police. “An inquiry was conducted
and charges were proved against Thirumurthy. His two increments were
stopped with cumulative effect. The MLA was recommending such a person
for transfer,” says Gupta.
Dharmalingam also
wanted Gupta to drop disciplinary proceedings against another guard,
Manoharan, who was suspended for negligence of duty. He had been tardy
in reporting the death of a male elephant.
In another instance,
one Rajendran, a forester, got recommendations for a transfer from both
Dharmalingam and Textiles Minister NKKP Raja. Gupta first refused to
oblige. However, he was asked by his superiors in the forest department
to transfer Rajendran. “I had no other alternative, but to issue
the posting order,” says Gupta.
But the man who
was shunted out to accommodate Rajendran approached the Madras High
Court, seeking to quash the transfer order. Again acting on instructions
from his higher-ups, Gupta had to rescind his earlier order. “The
position of DFO becomes very miserable in such cases,” says Gupta.
‘‘The MLA and minister wonder why a junior officer doesn’t
listen to them.’’ The DFO detailed the pressure he was under
in a 17-page letter dated August 18 to senior officers including Secretary,
Environment and Forests, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and
the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary.
In January, Gupta
suspended two rangers and five forest staff posted at the Sathyamangalam
sandalwood depot after sandalwood logs worth Rs 1 lakh were stolen.
The ‘theft’ occurred when Gupta was away. When informed,
Gupta filed an fir at the Sathyamangalam police station. Gupta suspects
that the forest staff expected him to conceal the incident, as the loss
could have easily been attributed to ‘dryage’ — the
term for weight loss in logs due to loss of moisture. “Pilferage
was stopped during my tenure in Sathyamangalam,” he says. Gupta
also closely monitored the harvest of minor forest produce by contractors.
He was trying to tighten procedures when he got his marching orders.
Gupta made enemies
when he acted against seven STF personnel he caught red-handed after
they had felled 21 eucalyptus trees in the forest. The incident happened
in February at Aasanur range limit. Initially, Gupta planned to remand
the cops to judicial custody, but relented following severe pressure
from “all quarters”. He imposed a penalty of Rs 13,500 instead.
The STF never bothered to pay the fine.
It’s a lonely
battle for Gupta, who hails from Ranchi, Jharkhand, and lives with his
wife and five-year-old daughter. The strain has taken its toll —
he has developed high blood pressure. In protest Gupta has refused to
report to his new post and might challenge his transfer in court.
Writer’s
e-mail: vinoj@tehelka.com |
