MP High Court Upholds Reinstatement Benefits For Forest Guard, Says Dismissal Based On 'No Evidence'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State Government and Forest Department authorities, affirming an earlier order that set aside the dismissal of a Forest Guard accused of facilitating illegal transportation of forest produce and accepting bribes. The Division Bench held that the departmental findings against the employee were based on “no evidence” and therefore warranted judicial interference.

A Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal upheld the February 19, 2024 judgment of a Single Judge in favour of late Forest Guard Ganesh Ram Kirar, whose legal heirs pursued the litigation after his death. The court also directed the authorities to extend all consequential service and retiral benefits to his family by treating him as having remained in service until superannuation.

Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Smt. Janhavi Pandit argued that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authorities were supported by sufficient material and that the Single Judge had effectively re-appreciated evidence like an appellate court, which is impermissible in judicial review. Advocate Shri Ashok Kumar Jain represented the respondent employee.

Background of the case

The case arose from allegations relating to January 1993, when Kirar was posted as a Forest Guard in Bamhori Range. The department alleged that he allowed illegal transportation of forest produce through bullock carts without the required transit permits and accepted Rs.500 per cart as illegal gratification. Following a departmental inquiry, the charges were held proved and he was dismissed from service. His departmental appeal was also rejected in 2002, leading him to approach the High Court.

What did the Court held

While examining the matter, the court noted that four of the five prosecution witnesses had categorically denied paying any money to the Forest Guard and did not support allegations that the transportation occurred with his consent or connivance. The witnesses further stated that their earlier statements were incorrect and that their testimony before the inquiry should be treated as true. According to the Bench, this retraction struck at the very foundation of the disciplinary case.

The court also found significant deficiencies in the testimony of the fifth witness, Superintendent Sanjay Moharrir. Although he reiterated an earlier report alleging misconduct, the inquiry record revealed that no independent evidence was produced to establish payment of bribes, no money was recovered from the employee, and no member of the inspection team was examined to corroborate the allegations. The Bench observed that there was also no evidence proving illegal felling or transportation of forest wood from the employee’s beat area.

The judges further noted that the employee’s defence was completely ignored during the inquiry. Kirar had consistently maintained that he was travelling to meet his ailing wife when he encountered the Superintendent’s team, accompanied them on instructions, and was later falsely implicated by persons involved in the seizure operation. The disciplinary authorities neither examined this explanation nor sought evidence from other officials present during the incident.

Reiterating settled principles governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, the court emphasised that while High Courts cannot act as appellate forums to reassess evidence, interference is justified where findings are unsupported by any material.

Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the Bench observed that disciplinary conclusions must be founded on “some evidence” and cannot rest on conjecture. It held that where all material witnesses withdraw support for the allegations, no recovery is made, and the defence version remains untested, the charge cannot be treated as proved even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable to departmental proceedings.

The Bench ultimately concluded that “the finding that this was a case of no evidence is well founded on the material on record” and that “no reasonable person acting on the available material could have found the charge proved against the delinquent.” Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning, the court dismissed the State’s appeal and directed compliance with the relief granted to the deceased employee’s legal heirs.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ganesh Ram Kirar (Dead) Through Los Smt. Radha Bai Kirar and Others

Date of Order: May 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal