Uttarakhand HC Upholds Dismissal of Forest Department Outsourced Employee Who Visited Accused in Tree-Felling Case and Leaked Information
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a writ petition by an outsourced Forest Department worker whose engagement was ended after he visited an accused in an illicit tree-felling case and disclosed sensitive official information.
The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to interfere with an order discontinuing the engagement of an outsourced Forest Department employee who visited the residence of a person accused of illicit tree felling and disclosed information that ought not to have been shared. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, sitting singly, dismissed the writ petition on 27 May 2026, holding that the petitioner had no lien on the post as an outsourced worker and that the allegation in the show cause notice had to be treated as accepted because the petitioner did not dispute it in his writ petition.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioner was engaged through an outsourcing agency, UPNL, in the Forest Department. His engagement was discontinued by an order dated 17 February 2024. That order was the subject of challenge in Writ Petition (SS) No. 492 of 2024.
The background to the termination was an incident of illicit felling of trees against which the Forest Department had initiated proceedings. During those proceedings, the petitioner visited the house of the accused person and also disclosed certain information connected with the departmental action. The Forest Range Officer, Jhajhra Range, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. In that notice, the Range Officer recorded that the petitioner had himself admitted visiting the residence of the accused and took exception to that conduct. The Range Officer's position was that if the petitioner had any reason to visit the accused's house, he should at minimum have sought permission from or informed the departmental authorities beforehand.
The impugned order also noted that the petitioner had been issued warnings on earlier occasions but had not improved his conduct. He was accordingly given one month's notice that his engagement would be discontinued with effect from 18 March 2024.
The Petitioner's Case
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegation was not substantiated by any evidence and that the petitioner had been made a scapegoat. The petitioner also contended, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, that he was not bound by the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and therefore could not be penalised for disclosing information.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Tiwari identified a critical concession in the writ petition itself. The petitioner had not disputed the specific averment in the show cause notice that he had visited the residence of the accused person. The court held that because this averment went uncontested, it had to be treated as accepted. The evidentiary argument advanced by counsel — that the allegation was unsubstantiated — therefore could not stand.
On the Official Secrets Act argument, the court acknowledged that an outsourced employee may not be bound by that statute. However, it held that this did not exhaust the matter. The court's reasoning was that every employee of the Forest Department, whether regular or outsourced, is expected not to divulge sensitive official information to strangers. In this case, the person to whom the information was allegedly disclosed was the very individual accused of illicit felling of trees — making the conduct more serious, not less.
The court also addressed the petitioner's service status directly. As an outsourced employee, the petitioner had no lien on the post. The impugned order had been passed after a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond. The procedural requirement of a prior notice had been met.
The court declined to accept the argument that the petitioner was a scapegoat, finding no basis in the record to support that characterisation given the admitted visit and the prior warnings on record.
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed. The court declined to interfere with the order dated 17 February 2024 discontinuing the petitioner's engagement with the Forest Department. No relief was granted.