IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 19598 of 2015

PRABHAT YADAV

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate along with Ms.Gulab Kali Patel,

learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Shikha Sharma G.A. appeared for respondent.

WITH

WRIT PETITION No. 19634 of 2015

NARESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate along with Ms. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel

for the petitioner.

Ms. Shikha Sharma G.A. appeared for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 20036 of 2015

RAKESH KAILODIYA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate along with Ms. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel

for the petitioner.

Ms. Shikha Sharma G.A. appeared for the respondent.

ORDER 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