JUDGMENT Sinha, J.: 1. This writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.12.99 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in O. A. No. 700 of 1997 and O. A. No. 779 of 1997 whereby and where under the application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. The petitioner joined the Railway Service as Khalasi. He was promoted to the post of Head Train Examiner (HTXR). Allegedly, on 14.1.97, he had to leave his place of duty owing to his illness. His duty was reallocated to one J.K. Bagchi, C.S. The petitioner was asked to attend the office of C.V. I., Maligaon. The petitioner joined his duties at Siliguri Junction Railway Station on 17.1.97. He again went on leave on 17.2.97' and was admitted to a Hospital. On or about 30th April, 1997, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. Although by that time no departmental proceeding was initiated, he was not paid his retiral and terminal benefit. He was paid only the provident fund amount and group insurance maturity value on 1.5.97. He made a representation which was not taken into consideration. On 13.6.97, the petitioner filed an application which was marked as O.A. No. 700 of 1997 praying for release of his retiral benefit, whereafter only, that is, on 17.6.97 a charge-sheet was served upon him. 4. Thereafter, another substantive application was filed on 7.7.97 questioning the aforementioned charge-sheet. 5. By reason of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has gone into the merit of the matter and inter alia held that the process of issuance of charge-sheet had been instituted before his retirement in terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993 which clearly states that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges will be issued to the Railway Servant or the pensioner. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has committed a serious error in proceeding to hold that the departmental proceeding has been instituted under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has committed a serious error in proceeding to hold that the departmental proceeding has been instituted under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. Departmental proceeding can be instituted against the Railway Servants or the pensioners under the Pension Rules only in the event, the following conditions are satisfied :- 9(2)(b).-If not instituted while the Railway Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the president; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the president may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Railway Servant during his service. 6. Further in terms of the provision of Section 26 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 every order, notice and other process made or issued under these rules, shall be served in person on the Railway Servant concerned or communicated to him by registered post. Such service by registered post has only been effected on 17.6.97. 7. There is nothing on record to show nor the learned Tribunal had arrived at a finding that any attempt has been made by the concerned authority to comply with the aforementioned provision. Furthermore, if the process of issuance of charge-sheet is started prior to reaching the age of superannuation, such proceeding could have been initiated in terms of the provision of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules and not in terms of the Pension Rules. From the letter dated 25.7.97, it appears :- "While acknowledging receipt of your letter under reference, this is to inform you that as M/Roll submitted by Sr. S.E. (C & M)/S.G.U.J., Sri Dutta was on C1 from 1.2.97 to 15.2.97 with rest on 3.2.97 and 10.2.97 and present on 17.2.97 and then sick under R.M.C. No. 853 from 17.2.97 to 30.4.97 (i.e., till date of retirement) and, accordingly, full pay was drawn in his favour upto 30.4.97. This office was not all aware of Sri Dutta's suspension as no remarks to that effect was endorsed anywhere in the M/Roll by Sr. This office was not all aware of Sri Dutta's suspension as no remarks to that effect was endorsed anywhere in the M/Roll by Sr. S.E. (C & W) / S.G.U.J. and as such the contents of his R. No. H/C & W/97 dated 27.6.97 appears to be quite surprising and misleading. This is for your perusal and further necessary action please." 8. The said letter is also to the effect that this office was not aware that a deparmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner or the petitioner has been placed under suspension as sought to be contended before the learned Tribunal. 9. The question which has been raised in this application is no longer res integra. 10. The Apex Court in the case of (1) State of U.P. & Anr. v. Shrikrishna Pandey reported in 1996 (9) SCC 395 , observed :- "6.-It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent Officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the Officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as a disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Regulation 351-A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the other hand, the Regulation also would indicate that if the Officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc., due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the Officer as expeditiously as possible. But, the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place. Admittedly, in this case, the Officer had retired on 31.3.1987 and the proceedings were initiated on 21.4.1991. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place. Admittedly, in this case, the Officer had retired on 31.3.1987 and the proceedings were initiated on 21.4.1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the date of his retirement. Under these circumstances, the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the respondent and allowed the Officer to escape from the provisions of Regulations 351-A of the Regulations." 11. Yet again the Apex Court in the case of (2) High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 321, observed : "But, it would appear that the Chief Justice was not appraised that the delinquent had already been retired from service on completion of two years' period of extended service or re-employment with effect from 31.8.1982. Therefore, the order of giving effect to the order of dismissal from the date of its order was of no consequence and became superfluous as he was no longer in service as on that date. However, it would be clear that he has the power either under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab and Haryana Civil Services Manual, Vol. II or Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules to take appropriate action as was made applicable to the staff of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as the case may be." 12. In all the aforementioned decisions, the Supreme Court clearly held that the concerned authority can only proceed in terms of the Pension Rules. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that despite the fact that no charge-sheet could have been issued against the petitioner nor any departmental proceeding could be instituted, the same would not preclude the respondents from initiating an appropriate proceeding against the petitioner in terms of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993. 13. For the reason aforementioned, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 14. The respondents are hereby directed to take steps for payment of retiral and other terminal benefits subject to the result 0; the proceeding, if instituted in terms of the aforementioned rules against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. 13. For the reason aforementioned, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 14. The respondents are hereby directed to take steps for payment of retiral and other terminal benefits subject to the result 0; the proceeding, if instituted in terms of the aforementioned rules against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis. Ray, J.: I agree.