ORDER : (Rajani Dubey, J.) Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of order dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure P/2) whereby respondent No.1 ordered to deduct 5% amount from the pension of the petitioner for a period of three years as also to the order dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) by which appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No.1 as being not maintainable. 02. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was posted as Additional Collector, Durg in the year 2010-11 and during this period, there was reorganization of two districts from Distt. Durg i.e. Balod and Bemetara and then there was need of 70 posts of Patwari due to formation of new districts and on account of strike of Patwaris in Balod district, out of sanctioned posts of 203 Patwaris, only 134 Patwaris were working whereas in Bemetara, out of 176 sanctioned posts of Patwaris, only 129 Patwaris were working. At that point of time, as per directives of the State, the Patwaris were directed to work for census, agricultural and election besides their regular revenue work. Thus, looking to the situation of lack of Patwaris and nature of work, they were advised to take additional charge of various other Patwari circles. However, the Patwari Association held their meeting in this regard and refused to take additional charge, probably because they do not get any remuneration for such additional charge, and submitted their "Basta" (additional charge material) to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar accordingly informed the Collector about this vide Annexure P/3. 03. The Collector then issued various orders in between 6.9.2011 and 24.12.2011 for transfer of as many as 70 Patwaris from one place to another, however, these orders were subsequently cancelled by the Collector on the instructions of the Commissioner on 30.12.2011. It is worth mentioning here that majority of such transfer orders were signed by the Collector herself barring a few which were signed by the petitioner at the behest of the Collector. It is worth mentioning here that majority of such transfer orders were signed by the Collector herself barring a few which were signed by the petitioner at the behest of the Collector. On complaint being made by one of the Patwaris to the Secretary, an explanation was sought by the Secretary on 10.2.2012 (Annexure P/4) from the concerned Collector as to how such transfer has been made contrary to the transfer policy during the ban period and in turn, the Collector submitted her reply on 1.3.2012 (Annexure P/5) explaining the fact situation necessitating issuance of these transfer orders. On the direction of the State Government, Department of Revenue and Disasters Management dated 12.3.2012 to the Commissioner, Raipur Division for conducting an inquiry into this matter and submitting the report by 16.3.2012, the Commissioner got an inquiry conducted by the Additional Commissioner (Inquiry Officer) and the Dy. Commissioner (Revenue) who submitted their inquiry report on 16.3.2012 to the Commissioner (Annexure P/6) wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner made proposals for transfer of Patwaris at a large scale during the ban period and the transfer was made with the approval of the Collector. 04. Acting on the said report of the Commissioner, an immediate order of suspension of the petitioner was issued on 20.3.2012 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, on 27.3.2012 a charge sheet (Annexure P/8) was issued to the petitioner along with list of documents and witnesses which was replied to by the petitioner in detail on 18.4.2012 (Annexure P/9). However, being not satisfied with his reply, departmental inquiry was initiated against him and on 19.12.2013 the inquiry report (Annexure P/10) was submitted wherein the petitioner was not held guilty and it is recorded that no loss is caused to the State Exchequer. However, the higher authorities arbitrarily dismissed the said findings in the inquiry report and held the petitioner guilty while exonerating the Collection with a remark to be cautious in future in such administrative work vide Annexure P/12. By the impugned order dated 23.7.2014 it was directed that 5% amount from the pension of the petitioner be deducted for a period of three years. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before His Excellency, however, the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) as being not maintainable. By the impugned order dated 23.7.2014 it was directed that 5% amount from the pension of the petitioner be deducted for a period of three years. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before His Excellency, however, the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) as being not maintainable. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from Respondents. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the orders contained in Annexure P-1 and P-2, passed by the Respondents. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other order as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including cost." 05. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that entire proceedings which culminated into the orders impugned are liable to be quashed as they are not only illegal but are also outcome of the pre- determined attitude of the State authorities against the petitioner. All the transfer orders were passed by the Collector in view of the administrative exigencies as submitted by the Collector herself on 1.3.2012 (Annexure P/5). He further submitted that the transfer policy was merely an executive instruction having no force of law. Moreover, the policy had no application in derogation to the rules contained in Chhattisgarh Land Records Manual. It is settled law that transfer policy issued by the government has no statutory backing and it is mere guidelines and provisions of any policy or guidelines or circular cannot override any statutory provisions. The Collector was empowered to transfer the Patwaris from one sub-division to another and the petitioner was only a recommending authority. The Collector herself passed the cancellation orders which were subsequently quashed by the High Court in several writ petitions filed against such orders. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioner was exonerated from the charges in the inquiry report and it was held that no loss has been caused to the State Exchequer but the said findings were arbitrarily not relied upon by the respondent authorities and the impugned order of 5% deduction from the pension of the petitioner for three years has been passed whereas the Pension Rules and the CCA Rules do not postulate or empower the authorities to withhold the pension amount. Thus action of the respondent authorities deducting 5% pension of the petitioner is without any jurisdiction and is contrary to the pension rules. The State authorities have committed a grave illegality by exonerating the Collector, who issued order cancelling the transfer orders, on the one hand and punishing the petitioner, who was neither responsible for issuance of such transfer orders or cancellation thereof, on the other hand. Their action is absolutely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd. and another, (2006) 9 SCC 440 and Dy. General Masnager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State would contend that the petitioner initiated proposal of transfer of around 70 Patwaris while he was posted as Additional Collector, Durg and said transfer was made during the ban period. He submitted that during the ban period in the year 2011-12, transfers could only have been made in extremely urgent situation through and in co-ordination with the Chief Secretary after obtaining approval of the Chief Minister vide letter dated 8.8.2011 (page no. 38 of writ petition). However, the petitioner did not follow the proper process and procedure for transfer of Patwaris during the ban period. On the complaint made by one Ramnaresh Tandon to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipur vide letter dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure R/2), the Commissioner, Raipur was directed to conduct inquiry into this matter vide letter dated 12.3.2012 (Annexure R/3). Learned counsel for the State would further submit that it appears from the inquiry report dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P/6) that due to such transfer being made during ban period, all the posts of Patwari in Distt. Durg were filled up but it caused a huge vacancy of the post of Patwari in two newly formed districts (Bemetara and Balod). Hence the act of the petitioner being in violation of Rule 3 of CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 20.3.2012 his services were suspended in accordance with Rule 9(1)(a) of CCA Rules, 1966. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and inquiry report dated 19.12.2013 was submitted. Hence the act of the petitioner being in violation of Rule 3 of CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 20.3.2012 his services were suspended in accordance with Rule 9(1)(a) of CCA Rules, 1966. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and inquiry report dated 19.12.2013 was submitted. However, disagreeing with the findings of the inquiring authority, by order dated 23.7.2014 it was directed that 5% amount from the pension of the petitioner for three years be deducted as he already stood retired on 31.3.2012 and for this consent of the Public Service Commission was already obtained on 6.6.2014. The order of deduction is in consonance with Rule 9 of CG Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976. He submitted that report of inquiring authority is not binding on the disciplinary authority and as such, the disagreement was strictly in accordance with Rule 15 of CCA Rules, 1966. The disciplinary authority has recorded its reasons for the disagreement and the order passed by the disciplinary authority is a speaking, just and reasonable order. So far as appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Governor is concerned, as per circular of GAD dated 5.1.2000 the order passed under Rule 9(2)(1) of the Rules, 1976 is a final order in itself and no appeal lies against such an order as per the rules. Hence vide letter dated 10.12.2014 the appeal preferred by the petitioner has rightly been rejected after due consideration and application of mind. In view of above, the present petition lacks any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was a government servant who was appointed on 15.11.1978 as Naib Tehsildar, he was posted as Additional Collector, Durg in the year 2010-11 and was retired from service on 31.3.2012. It is also not disputed that prior to his retirement, the respondents initiated a departmental inquiry and inflicted on him punishment of deduction of 5% pension for a period of three years. The petitioner filed a representation/appeal against this order but the same was rejected by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that in the same matter, the higher authority of the petitioner i.e. Collector was exonerated with a simple warning vide Annexure P/12. The petitioner filed a representation/appeal against this order but the same was rejected by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that in the same matter, the higher authority of the petitioner i.e. Collector was exonerated with a simple warning vide Annexure P/12. it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner proposed transfer of some Patwaris and final order was issued by the then Collector. The inquiry conducted against the Collector was dropped as per order dated 28.5.2014 (Annexure P/12) which reads as under: From paras 3 & 4 of the aforesaid order it clearly reveals that the then Collector issued the transfer orders of Patwaris and appointment order of the competent authority keeping in view the local circumstances and the public problems which were subsequently cancelled by her, and the competent authority dropped the proceedings against the Collector but the petitioner who is junior to the Collector and is not final authority for transfer of the Patwaris, was awarded punishment of 5% deduction of his pension for a period of three years. 09. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lav Nigam (supra) having referred to its earlier judgments on the issue of requirement of issuance of show cause to the delinquent before the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority, observed in para 13 of its order as under: "13. We have already quoted the extracts from the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. It is clear that no notice at all was given before the disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusions differing with the finding of fact of the inquiry officer. The notice to show cause was merely a show-cause against the proposed punishment. In view of the long line of authorities, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajai Kumar Shrivastava (supra) has observed in paras 26, 32 & 41 of its judgment as under: "26. In view of the long line of authorities, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajai Kumar Shrivastava (supra) has observed in paras 26, 32 & 41 of its judgment as under: "26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 32. The submission which persuaded the High Court in the impugned judgment, SBI Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, 2018 SCC OnLine All 5987, is basically for two reasons: 32.1. Firstly, before the finding of disagreement being recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to Charge 1, fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent delinquent and that has caused prejudice to him. 32.2. Secondly, the disciplinary authority/appellate authority has not examined the record of disciplinary enquiry independently and passed a non-speaking order without due application of mind and this is what prevailed upon the High Court in the impugned judgment in setting aside the penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent. 41. In the case on hand, the disciplinary/appellate authority was not supposed to pass a judgment however while passing the order dated 24-7-1999, the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry, including self-contained enquiry report dated 22-5-1999 and his prima facie opinion dated 29-6-1999 which was made available to the respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by the delinquent, expressed its brief reasons in upholding the finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24-7-1999. That apart, the appeal preferred by the respondent delinquent was examined by the appellate authority as it reveals under paras 3(i) to (viii) in upholding the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer in his report dismissing the respondent employee from service, rejected by order dated 15-11-1999. That apart, the appeal preferred by the respondent delinquent was examined by the appellate authority as it reveals under paras 3(i) to (viii) in upholding the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer in his report dismissing the respondent employee from service, rejected by order dated 15-11-1999. After detailed discussion, we are unable to accept the finding recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority which deserves to be set aside." 11. In light of above decisions, in the present case also it is clear that the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report (Ex.P/10) exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The operative part of this report reads as under: However, the competent authority did not agree with the said findings of the Inquiry Authority and by the impugned order dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure P/2) awarded punishment to the petitioner of 5% deduction of his pension for three years. In the said order it is also observed by the competent authority that it is within the jurisdiction of the government to take cognizance of lapses on the part of the Collector and express its view thereon. Paras 3, 4 & 5 of this order being relevant are reproduced hereunder: 12. It is also clear from the order dated 28.5.2014 (Annexure P/12) that in the same matter, the then Collector, who is the final authority for transfer of Patwari, was not awarded any punishment, no departmental enquiry was initiated against her and rather the complaint against her was filed but the petitioner, who was Additional Collector and only made some proposals for transfer of Patwari, was awarded punishment. It is also clear that no notice was issued by the competent authority to the petitioner before passing the impugned punishment order whereas in view of the settled legal position, before finding of disagreement being recorded by the disciplinary authority, a fair opportunity of hearing is to be given to the delinquent. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the whole inquiry was conducted as against the petitioner and the competent authority passed the punishment order and also the fact that the petitioner already retired in the year 2012, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) and 23.7.2014 (Annexure P/2) are liable to be set aside. 13. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures P/1 & P/2) are hereby set aside with consequences to follow.