ORDER The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 7.12.2007, passed by the City Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation (in short the PMC) and communicated vide Memo no. 2499 dated 10.12.07, issued under the signature of Additional City Commissioner, PMC, by which he has been inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in PMC in August, 1981. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PMC. It appears that for some acts of omission and commission, he was put under suspension vide order dated 6.8.2007 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. One Sri Chandra Nath Jha, Additional Commissioner, PMC was appointed as Enquiry officer. The Additional City Commissioner vide letter dated 16.8.2007 (Annexure 6) issued show cause with respect to allegations vide letter dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure 7) claiming to be innocent. 3. After consideration of the show cause reply, the Additional Commissioner however in his report submitted on 5.12.2007 noticed that no specific charges were framed as yet and as such the departmental proceeding cannot proceed. However differing with the report of the Additional Municipal Commissioner, the Municipal Commissioner, PMC vide order dated 7.12.2007 imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any payment, save and except subsistence allowance already paid during suspension. 4. The petitioner states that he has been awarded major punishment without following the procedure provided in the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (in short the CCA Rules, 2005) and as such, un-sustainable in law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 2005 and as he has already preferred representation before the Secretary, Urban Development (Appellate authority) he should pursue the same as it can be treated as appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Generally, when alternative remedy is available under the Rules, this Court ordinarily would relegate the matter to the appellate authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Generally, when alternative remedy is available under the Rules, this Court ordinarily would relegate the matter to the appellate authority. However, in the instant case on admitted facts I find that the statutory provisions contained in the CCA Rules, 2005 have not at all been followed while awarding major punishment which would include framing of charge, serving of charge memo, providing list of documents or witnesses on which the prosecution is relying, providing the delinquent with a copy of enquiry report and seeking his response on to it etc. In the instant case, I find that none of the mandatory requirements envisaged in Section 17 of the CCA Rules, 2005 have been followed before imposing major punishment. The order of punishment thus has been inflicted in total non-observance of the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalty, as such, order of punishment is set aside. 7. As the petitioner has retired, there cannot be any order remanding the matter for continuance of the Departmental Enquiry. Nonetheless, the instant order will not come in the way of the respondents in taking any other remedial measures under the law against the petitioner. 8. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations.