ORDER :

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner retired from the office of respondent No.3 from the post of Section Officer on 31.7.2007, but at that time, disciplinary proceeding was pending against him as he was served with charge-sheet on 25.4.2007 and ultimately, by order dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) respondent No.3/disciplinary authority after found him guilty of misconduct directed for withholding of his 10% pension under Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1976') as punishment for his alleged misconduct.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating inter-alia that withholding of his pension by respondent No.3 is contrary to law and it is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as no notice has been served to the petitioner for withholding of his pension and therefore, it is liable to be set-aside and amount of Rs.42,249/- along with 18% per annum be directed to be paid by respondent No.3.

4. Return has been filed by respondent No.3 stating inter-alia that the order passed by respondent No.3 is in accordance with law. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct charged against him and if the petitioner is aggrieved against the finding of disciplinary authority, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1966') or under Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 1976, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. It has also been pleaded that the Rules of 1966 has been amended by M.P.E.B. Notification dated 26.3.70 and appropriate officer of the Board has been substituted in the Rules of 1966. Additional return has also been filed on 22.7.2021 stating inter-alia that pension has been withheld under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of 1976 and against which, appeal would lie under Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 1976 and the Superintendent Engineer is competent authority to pass an order withholding 10% pension as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1976 being pension sanctioning authority.

5. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of 1976 if the petitioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct, then the procedure contemplated under Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976 has to be followed and only following Rule 8(3)b) of the Rules of 1976, the order withholding penalty can be passed under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of 1976, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would submit that under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of 1976 the petitioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct and therefore, respondent No.3 being the pension sanctioning authority the impugned order has been passed, which is in accordance with law. He would submit that in compliance of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, notice dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure P-4) has been served to the petitioner and reply has been given by the petitioner on 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-8) and the petitioner has a remedy to file appeal under Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 1976, as such, the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. At the outset, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal against the order passed under Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of 1976, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

9. Submission raised by Mr. Tiwari deserves to be noted fo