Departmental proceedings are maintainable when initiated pursuant to liberty expressly granted in prior judicial orders.

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Grade-III), was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 26 June 2007.

He was removed from service on the allegation that he had submitted a forged Higher Secondary (10+2) marksheet, but was subsequently reinstated by order dated 9 December 2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara.

Earlier proceedings concerning the same marksheet culminated in an order dated 19 March 2025 in WPS No. 3406 of 2022, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 613 of 2025 on 22 August 2025.

The respondents thereafter initiated fresh departmental proceedings by order dated 12 June 2026, followed by communication dated 3 August 2026.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings as repetitive and contrary to the earlier adjudication.

He also alleged non-consideration of his reply dated 10 February 2026 to the show-cause notice dated 8 January 2026 and failure to finalize his absorption proposal dated 13 May 2026.

The State contended that the fresh enquiry was initiated pursuant to the specific liberty granted by the Court in the earlier order to proceed under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

Whether the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the allegation concerning his Higher Secondary marksheet were impermissible as proceedings on the same allegation, despite the liberty granted by the Court to proceed under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules.

Whether the respondents’ alleged failure to consider the petitioner’s reply and finalize his absorption proposal justified interference with the departmental enquiry.

The Court applied Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, governing the initiation and conduct of departmental disciplinary proceedings.

The Court further applied the principle that where an earlier judicial order expressly grants liberty to the authorities to proceed in accordance with the applicable disciplinary rules, proceedings initiated pursuant to that liberty cannot, at the threshold, be treated as without jurisdiction or contrary to the earlier order.

The employee retains the remedies available under law during the course of the departmental proceedings.

The Court examined the earlier order dated 19 March 2025 and found that it had expressly permitted the respondents to proceed further in accordance with Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules.

Consequently, the departmental enquiry initiated on 12 June 2026 was treated as an exercise of the liberty granted by the Court, notwithstanding that it concerned the same marksheet allegation.

Since the proceedings were not shown to be outside the authority conferred by the earlier order or otherwise without jurisdiction, the Court declined to interdict them at the initiation stage.

The grievances concerning non-consideration of the petitioner’s reply and the pending absorption proposal were held insufficient to invalidate or stay the disciplinary enquiry.

The petitioner’s challenge was therefore rejected, and WPS No. 6348 of 2026 was dismissed.

The petitioner was left to pursue remedies available to him in accordance with law during the departmental proceedings.