No Evidence, No Dismissal: MP High Court Protects Forest Guard’s Service Benefits After Faulting Departmental Inquiry

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld reinstatement and retiral benefits for a Forest Guard after finding that the disciplinary proceedings against him were based on “no evidence.” Refusing to interfere with an earlier Single Judge ruling, the Division Bench observed that departmental authorities cannot sustain charges merely on suspicion or unsupported allegations, especially when key witnesses withdraw their statements and no corroborative material exists.

A Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the State Government’s appeal in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ganesh Ram Kirar, affirming that the late Forest Guard’s dismissal from service was legally unsustainable. The Court directed authorities to grant all consequential and retiral benefits to his legal heirs by treating him as continuing in service until superannuation.

The case originated from allegations dating back to January 1993, when Ganesh Ram Kirar was posted in the Bamhori Forest Range. The department accused him of permitting illegal transportation of forest produce through bullock carts without transit permits and allegedly accepting illegal gratification of ₹500 per cart. Following a departmental inquiry, the charges were treated as proved and he was dismissed from service, with his departmental appeal also being rejected in 2002.

However, while examining the record, the High Court found glaring weaknesses in the departmental case. Four of the five prosecution witnesses had completely retracted their earlier allegations during the inquiry and denied paying any bribe to the Forest Guard. They also denied that the transportation of forest produce occurred with his knowledge or consent. The Bench noted that these witnesses specifically stated that their earlier statements were incorrect, striking at the very foundation of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Court further observed that the remaining witness, a Superintendent who relied on an earlier report, failed to produce any independent evidence proving payment of illegal gratification. No money was recovered from the employee, no corroborative witness from the inspection team was examined, and there was no proof establishing illegal felling from the respondent’s beat area. Equally important, the authorities ignored the employee’s defence that he had merely accompanied the inspection team while travelling to meet his ailing wife and was falsely implicated thereafter.

Reiterating the settled principles governing judicial review in disciplinary matters, the High Court clarified that while courts ordinarily do not re-appreciate evidence like appellate authorities, interference becomes necessary where findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, the Bench held that even departmental proceedings conducted on the standard of “preponderance of probabilities” require some credible material to sustain charges.

Finding that no reasonable person could have concluded guilt on the available material, the

Court upheld the earlier judgment quashing the dismissal order. It also rejected the State’s objection to granting service benefits after the employee’s death, holding that once dismissal is set aside, the legal heirs become entitled to retiral benefits as though the employee had continued in service until retirement.

The ruling reinforces an important administrative law principle: disciplinary action against public servants must rest on substantive evidence and fair consideration of defence, not on conjecture, withdrawn statements, or unsupported departmental assumptions.