The initiation of departmental proceedings is legally sustainable and not arbitrary if the court has expressly granted liberty to the authorities to proceed in accordance with the applicable service rules, regardless of previous adjudications on the same subject matter.

Order on Board

25/08/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 26.06.2007 and was posted at Government Primary School, Saja. It is submitted that, on the allegation of submission of a forged Higher Secondary (10+2) marksheet, the petitioner was removed from service; however, he was subsequently reinstated by order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara. It is further submitted that, despite the issue having already been considered and adjudicated upon, the respondents have again initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the very same allegation relating to his Higher Secondary (10+2) marksheet of the year 2001. The earlier proceedings culminated in the judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 3406/2022, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 613/2025 vide judgment dated 22.08.2025. Learned counsel further submits that, despite the aforesaid adjudication, the respondents have once again initiated departmental proceedings vide order dated 12.06.2026, followed by communication dated 03.08.2026. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s reply dated 10.02.2026 to the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 has not been considered and his case for absorption, despite the proposal dated 13.05.2026, has also not been finalized. It is, therefore, submitted that the repeated initiation of proceedings on the same allegation and the failure of the respondents to consider the petitioner’s reply and finalize his case for absorption is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

2. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the departmental enquiry has been initiated strictly in accordance with law and pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 3406/2022. It is submitted that this Court had specifically granted liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with Rule 7 of the C.G. Panchayat Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules, 1999’). Learned State counsel further submits that the present departmental enquiry has, therefore, not been initiated in violation of the earlier order of this Court, but pursuant to the liberty expressly granted therein. Hence, the petitioner’s challenge to the initiation of the departmental proceedings is devoid of merit and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings against him on the same allegation relating to his Higher Secondary (10+2) marksheet, which, according to the petitioner, had already been considered in the earlier proceedings culminating in the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 3406/2022 and affirmed in WA No. 613/2025 vide judgment dated 22.08.2025.

5. However, from a perusal of the order dated 19.03.2025, it is apparent that this Court had granted liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. In pursuance of the said liberty, the respondents have initiated the departmental enquiry vide order dated 12.06.2026. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the subsequent departmental proceedings have been initiated in violation of the earlier order of this Court cannot be accepted.

6. Once specific liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, the initiation of the departmental enquiry pursuant thereto cannot, at this stage, be held to be without jurisdiction or contrary to the order passed by this Court. The petitioner would have all the remedies available to him in accordance with law during the course of the departmental proceedings.

7. As regards the peti