IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 13528 of 2017 SMT. LEELAVATI DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Prabhanshu Shukla G.A. appeared for respondent.

ORDER

1. The present petition is being filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: -

“7.1 This Hon'ble Court may by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet dated 17.06.1981 and order rejecting representation dated 31.05.2017 [Annexure P-42], the impugned orders, in the interests of justice.

7.2 This Hon'ble Court may by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction be pleased to direct the respondents to pay all salary, arrears of salary with interest, consequential benefits and pension with market rate of interest, in the interests of justice.

7.3 The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential reliefs arising out of quashing of the impugned orders.

7.4 That, any other relief, as deemed fit, may also kindly be granted.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner who was Signature Not Verified working as Van Rakshak now deceased, passed away on 05.06.2024 and following his demise, the petition is being prosecuted by his legal representatives, deceased employee, was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry for allegations of demanding illegal gratification from villagers. The petitioner was issued a chargesheet by order dated 17.06.1981. Subsequent to the issuance of the chargesheet the petitioner was transferred to Jaisingh Nagar Range, by an order date 28.07.1981. Pursuant to the departmental enquiry the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 15.09.1983, enclosed with the enquiry report wherein, imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service was proposed. Resultantly, petitioner was dismissed from the service vide order dated 09.04.1984.

3. Assailing the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Van Sanrakshak on 17.04.1984. Additionally, on 20.04.1984, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 15A/1984 before the Court of Civil Judge-II, Shahdol, challenging the order of dismissal and seeking an interim injunction. However, the application for interim relief was rejected by the Court on 11.09.1984. Subsequently, by an order dated 01.04.1986, the plaint was returned due to non-compliance of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

4. In the interregnum, the Principal Secretary vide order dated

03.01.1986, directed the reinstatement of the petitioner and a de-novo enquiry into the matter. In furtherance of the direction, the de-novo enquiry commenced from 17.10.1989, however, the petitioner was not reinstated. The Chief Conservator of Forest (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCF’) and Signature Not Verified Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (hereinafter referred to as 'Addl. PCCF') repeatedly requested, sent, and re-requested records by orders dated 25.10.1990, 17.02.1992 and through several memos in 1996–1999, no conclusive decision could be made due to non-availability of records. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department and the Addl. PCCF continued correspondence to trace or reconstitute the file from 1996 through 1999. In 1998, the petitioner was asked by the DFO Shahdol to submit a copy of appeal filed by him against the order of dismissal in his possession. A representation for reinstatement was filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2001, and follow-up action was taken by the Addl. PCCF requesting comments from the CF Shahdol. The petitioner filed a detailed representation on 25.03.2013 and again filed a representation on 07.03.2017, requesting the Conservator of Forest, Shahdol to take decision on second enquiry report. Between March and May 2017. The petitioner made sev