IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8418 of 2011. Union Of India through the General Manager, N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur. ………………. .Petitioner. Versus Syamdeo Ram retired Section Engineer (P.way) (Special) N.E.Railway, Chhapra son of Late Mithu Prasad, resident of Adedih, P.S.Ummapar District Mau (U.P.) …. Respondent. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr.Sakib Azaz.Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv. 2. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 3rd March 2010 whereby two original applications bearing Nos. 604 of 2003 and 104 of 2007 have been allowed. The Tribunal has accepted the claim of the respondent/applicant that since he was not under suspension at the relevant time, his application seeking retirement dated 11th January 2002 could not have been rejected and permission could not have been withdrawn by the Railways in view of proviso to Rule 66 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993. A perusal of Rule 66 of the Rules shows that after completion of 30 years of qualifying service, the Railway servant has been given right to retire from service, but with 2 a rider that he must give a notice in writing to the appointing authority 3 months before the date on which he wishes to retire. The only liberty given to the Railways to withhold such permission is provided in the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 66. According to that proviso, where the Railway servant giving notice is under suspension, it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to such railway servant to retire under this Rule. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, no doubt, the Railway employee i.e. the respondent was not under suspension but at that time minor charges against him were pending and, hence, withholding permission for retirement was justified. In our view once the Railways have framed Rules, the Rules shall not only bind the employees but also the Railways. They cannot seek further liberty to withhold permission sought by an employee to retire, except on the grounds or in the circumstances permitted by Rules. Hence, in our view the learned Tribunal has committed no error in allowing the prayer of the respondent. The other prayer of the respondent was to quash the order of dismissal passed on 29th September 2006 on the 3 ground that no proceeding could lie and no penalty of dismissal could have been passed after the applicant, respondent herein had sought retirement after giving proper notice which could not have been withheld, as demonstrated earlier. In our view the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the order of dismissal could not have been passed, once it has been held that the applicant was entitled to retirement on the basis of notice given by him and the authority could not have withheld permission for retirement. One issue raised before us is whether the Tribunal erred in not permitting the Railways to proceed against the respondent for inflicting penalty under the Pension Rules. In our view that issue has rightly been answered by the Tribunal by holding that since the incident which have led to major penalty charges relate to the year 1985, i.e to a period much beyond 4 years, no proceeding under the Pension Rules was permissible. In that view of the matter also, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)