Disciplinary action looming for ex-Kaeng Krachan park chief over misconduct

The former head of Kaeng Krachan National Park in Phetchaburi, Chaiwat Limlikit-aksorn, is facing potential disciplinary action following a misconduct investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The organisation has requested that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment consider the action against Chaiwat due to his involvement in a construction project within the park.

The NACC’s inquiry identified Chaiwat as responsible for misconduct during the establishment of a park ranger office building during his tenure as park chief. The inquiry discovered that Chaiwat was in violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Code, Sections 4 and 12 of the anti-price collusion law, as well as Section 172 of the anti-corruption law. His actions allowing the continuation of the construction project were deemed a gross disciplinary violation, reported Bangkok Post.

The NACC’s letter also noted that another official, Duang Sangthong, was also implicated in this case. Duang was found to have violated the same laws as Chaiwat and also committed a serious disciplinary violation.

However, while the NACC found no basis for criminal action against two other officials, Suporn Polpan and Nijitnapong Bunditsamit, it was established that they had committed a minor disciplinary breach.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has been urged by the NACC to take disciplinary action against the four officials, without needing to conduct further inquiry. The Ministry has been given 30 days to act upon the NACC’s findings.

Regarding criminal proceedings, the NACC has submitted the cases against Chaiwat and Duang to the Office of the Attorney-General.

In related news, after the Thai government’s decision to settle 150 Karen villagers in Kaeng Krachan National Park sparked protests in Phetchaburi, controversy ensued. Local residents, led by figures like former senator Sumol Sutawiriyapat, voiced concerns over potential damage to the forest.

The decision, made as part of a political campaign strategy, lacked local input and raised questions about conservation efforts. Legal challenges were filed as residents sought resolution and protested government action.