1. Forest guards granted out-of-turn promotion for detecting forest offences were issued disciplinary charge-sheets after the accused were acquitted due to witness contradictions. (Para 2 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
MANINDER S. BHATTI, J.
Prabhat Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19598 of 2015 With Writ Petition No. 19634 of 2015 Writ Petition No. 20036 of 2015
Decided On : 06-01-2026
1. Forest guards granted out-of-turn promotion for detecting forest offences were issued disciplinary charge-sheets after the accused were acquitted due to witness contradictions. (Para 2 )
2. Petitioners argued charge-sheets rested solely on a final acquittal, making the disciplinary authority an appellate authority; the State defended them as properly issued. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Petition allowed; impugned charge-sheet and ensuing disciplinary proceedings quashed. (Para 12 )
Ordinarily a charge-sheet is not quashed because it does not create a cause of action or infringe rights, but interference is permitted where the issuing authority lacks competence, the charge-sheet contains no whisper of misconduct, or the enquiry findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 10 )
No. The disciplinary authority cannot sit as an appellate court or re-examine the merits of the trial court's final judgment; a charge-sheet premised solely on the acquittal is issued without application of mind and is unsustainable. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 )
No. A witness is not declared hostile merely because of contradictions or because the court labels departmental employees as interested witnesses; such observations do not establish hostility for a misconduct charge. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
MANINDER S. BHATTI, J.
This order shall govern disposal of WP No.19598/2015, WP No.19634/2015 and WP No.20036/2015 as well. For the sake of convenience, facts of WP No.19598/2015 are being taken note of.
2. The facts in a nutshell reveal that the petitioners were initially appointed as Forest Guard. During their posting as such, forest offence vide Crime Nos.956/2016, 1144/2002, 966/2014, 24342/2004 and 922/2020 were registered by them on 18/04/2009, 22/06/2009, 20/08/2009, 23/06/2009 and 14/09/2010 respectively, against certain accused persons. The accused persons were arrested and after investigation charge-sheets in the matters were filed, however, the trial Court ultimately vide judgments dated 03/10/2011, 06/04/2010, 11/10/2011, 08/05/2012 and 12/03/2013 respectively, acquitted all the accused persons. Thereafter, the candidatures of the petitioners were considered for out of turn promotion so as to reward them for their excellent work of stopping poaching. Subsequently, the petitioners' were granted out of turn promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioners, show cause notices were issued against them seeking explanation with respect to the hostile and inconsistent statements advanced by the petitioners and for not putting the stand of the Government in an appropriate manner in the Court, which allegedly led to the acquittal of the accused persons sailing on the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, charge-sheets levelling serious allegations of negligence and misconduct against the petitioners were issued, which are impugned in the present petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the charge-sheets in the present case since has been issued only on the ground that in all criminal cases the accused persons were acquitted as there were contradictory and factually incorrect statements advanced by the present petitioners. It is contended by the counsel that the judgment of acquittal has been brought on record as Annexure P/1 and a perusal of the same would reveal that the present petitioners entered in a witness box as Prosecution Witnesses and also deposed against the accused persons, however, the Court concluded that there were certain contradictions in the statement of the Prosecution Witnesses and also observed that the witnesses were interested witnesses as they were employees of the Forest Department. Accordingly, the Court came to the conclusion that as there were no seizure of the weapon, the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended by the counsel that the Disciplinary Authority has virtually acted as an Appellate Authority while sitting over the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court. It is contended by the counsel that the State in the present case did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of acquittal, therefore, the said judgement has already attained finality. It is also not a case of the department that the present petitioners turned hostile, on the contrary, the trial Court upon due analysis and sifting of the evidence, has acquitted the accused persons and such acquittal cannot be made a basis to initiate disciplinary action against the present petitioners. It is thus contended that the charge-sheets so issued to the petitioner deserve quashment.
4. Per contra, counsel for the state has opposed the prayer and submitted that after due analysis and proper sifting of evidence, the charge-sheets have rightly been issued against the petitioners.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. A perusal of the record reflects that the following identical charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioners in all cases which is reproduced as under:
8. A perusal of the same reflects that the charges have been levelled against the petitioners that before the trial Court the petitioners appeared as witnesses and made contradictory statements and as th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top