Forest Dept’s Gradation Move Raises Legal Questions

The complainants have called for an independent review of the court orders, Forest Department correspondence, gradation records and related administrative decisions to establish the precise sequence of events

The Bangladesh Forest Department has faced questions over its reported move to advance the gradation process for deputy rangers while several related cases remain pending before administrative tribunals and an interim stay order issued by the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division remains in force.

The controversy centres on a letter issued by the department on May 12, 2026, followed by a hearing on a draft gradation list on May 14—just days after the Appellate Division ordered that an existing stay should remain in effect pending further proceedings.

According to court records, Administrative Tribunal Case No. 10/2026 involved the gradation of deputy rangers. On March 11, the tribunal issued an order, which was subsequently challenged before the Appellate Division through Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1110/2026.

On May 10, the Judge-in-Chamber of the Appellate Division issued an interim stay. After an application was filed seeking to vacate the stay, the Appellate Division directed that the existing stay would remain in force until the Administrative Tribunal disposed of an application concerning extension of the stay. The tribunal was also directed to dispose of that application within four weeks.

The complainants allege that despite the continuing stay, the Forest Department issued memorandum No. 861 on May 12 and held the draft gradation hearing two days later. They have questioned the legal basis for proceeding with the administrative process while the matter remained before the courts.

The dispute involves several cases across administrative tribunals and the Supreme Court. Records cited by the complainants show that cases No. 347/2025, 294/2025, 376/2025, 386/2025, 10/2026 and 193/2026 are pending before Administrative Tribunal-1 in Dhaka.

Case No. 212/2026 is pending before Administrative Tribunal-3, while Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1110/2026 remains before the Appellate Division.

The complainants argue that the existence of multiple pending cases makes any attempt to finalise the gradation process particularly contentious. They have also alleged that the May 14 hearing was attended by Chief Conservator of Forests Hossain Nishat, CF (Administration) R. S. Monirul Islam, DCF Umme Habiba, DCF Roksana, DCF Humayun Kabir and office assistant Kamal Hossain.

The complainants have made further allegations of financial irregularities, claiming that an attempt was made to influence the gradation process through financial transactions and administrative arrangements.

They allege that the process was advanced in anticipation that the stay might subsequently be vacated, potentially creating administrative advantages for certain individuals.

The allegations of financial transactions could not be independently verified, and no documentary evidence confirming such payments was available to this newspaper. 

The complainants have also raised questions over proceedings in Administrative Tribunal-3 Case No. 212/2026. They claim the tribunal issued an injunction on July 29, 2026, but that the order was vacated on August 2, allegedly before a copy of the July 29 order had been formally circulated.

The exact chronology and legal effect of those orders could not be independently established from the information available and would require examination of the complete court record and administrative documents.

Legal experts generally said administrative authorities should avoid taking steps that could conflict with an operative court order. Where administrative action appears inconsistent with judicial directions, the legality of the action and accountability of the officials involved may become matters for judicial determination.

The key issue now is whether the May 12 letter and May 14 hearing were legally permissible while the Appellate Division’s stay remained in force, and whether the subsequent administrative steps were consistent with the court’s directions.

The complainants have called for an independent review of the court orders, Forest Department correspondence, gradation records and related administrative decisions to establish the precise sequence of events.

The Finance Today contacted the relevant Forest Department officials several times for comment. Messages were also sent via WhatsApp, but no response was received.