IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2144 of 2024 Decided on: 11th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kewal Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondents had proceeded against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. After culmination of the departmental proceedings, impugned order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-19) was passed by respondent No.1, i.e. Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Rules, 1972 (in short ‘CCS (Pension) Rules’), imposing penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.1,42,597/- upon the petitioner to be recovered from his admissible retiral dues. 2. During the course of hearing, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 11.09.2025 from the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. These instructions extract Rules 9(5-A) and 9(5-B) of the amended CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and are to the effect that the petitioner has alternate remedy of preferring revision and review under the aforesaid Rules against the impugned order. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the petitioner has remedy of filing revision/review before the Hon’ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh against the order impugned in this writ petition. 4. In view of office instructions dated 11.09.2025 and the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek alternate remedy as per the stand of the respondents. 5. Taking the stand of the parties into consideration, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn 3 with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek alternate remedy of revision/review as projected for the respondents. The period spent in pursuing this litigation shall not be computed for limitation, if any. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh