S. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) INSPITE of receipt of notice the answering respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. As such the petition is heard and disposed of on merit. ( 2 ) BY means of this Writ petition petitioner challenges a notice for initiating disciplinary Proceeding No. 25 dated 24th of June, 1988 initiated by the Commissioner of Police, respondent No. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: ( 3 ) THE petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner being Proceeding No. 52 dated 24th of June, 1988 initiated by the Commissioner of police, respondent No. 2 vide Annexure 'b' to the writ petition. In the meantime, petitioner admittedly has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st of October, 1991 vide D. O. No. 1096 dated 31st of October, 1991. Petitioner alleges that during this long period of 39 years petitioner's services were appreciated and commended by the Higher Officials. It has been alleged that the purported charge-sheet has been issued on wrong assumption and the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation the question of continuing the proceedings after retirement does not arise. In paragraph 11 of the petition petitioner has stated that though the chargesheet was issued on 24th of June, 1988, the respondents have not concluded the departmental inquiry as yet for reasons best known to them. It has also been stated that after the retirement the petitioner has not been paid his retiremental benefits i. e. pension, provident found, gratuity, leave salary, arrear of selection grade pay and other retirement benefits. On enquiry petitioner was informed by the respondents that these retiremental benefits will not be paid to the petitioner so long as disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are completed. Petitioner was asked to appear on 3rd August, 1991 before the respondent No. 3 in connection with the departmental enquiry. A request was made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 to allow to the petitioner pension, gratuity and other retiremental benefits. According to petitioner departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Calcutta and Suburban Police (Subordinate Ranks Recruitment, Conditions of Service and discipline Rules,) 1962. Schedule II of the said Rules provides that punishment shall be of two classes viz. According to petitioner departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Calcutta and Suburban Police (Subordinate Ranks Recruitment, Conditions of Service and discipline Rules,) 1962. Schedule II of the said Rules provides that punishment shall be of two classes viz. major punishments and minor punishment and that major punishment includes dismissal, removal from service, reduction in rank, etc. Minor punishment includes warning, censorship, extra drill etc. It has also been stated that there is no provision under the said/rules for continuance of a disciplinary proceeding after the retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 10 of the West Bengal Government Servants (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971. Relevant portion of the said rules reads as under:"10 Right of the Governor to withhold pension in certain cases (1) the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found guilty in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty or grave misconduct or negligence, during the period of his service, including service, rendered on re-employment after retirement; provide that :- (a) Such departmental proceeding if initiated while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. " ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, if the rules are taken into consideration the question of proceeding in pursuance of charge-sheet after the retirement does not arise. 4a. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether after the retirement of an employee governed under the provisions of the West Bengal Government Servants (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971, a departmental proceeding other than recovery of the amounts causing to the State Government could continue or initiate after the person has attained the age of superannuation. A perusal of Rule 10 would go to show that a very limited right has been vested with the Government when an employee retires on attaining the age of superannuation and the mere fact that disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to the date of retirement and there is no charge in the charge-sheet that any financial loss caused to the State Government. If it is a case where loss has been caused on account of the acts of the employee it is within the provisions, of Rule 10 of Rules 1971 that the amount of lose may be determined and the proceedings may continue but if there is no such charge as it appears from Charge-sheet, Annexure "b", the question arises whether proceedings could continue which were initiated prior to the retirement of the petitioner and continued after the petitioner has retired. Reliance has been placed on a Divisible Bench decision of this court reported in 1992 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes, Volume 1 at page 354 Arun Kumar Biswas vs. Superintendent of Police, Burdwan and others where the division Bench has interpreted Rule 10 (1) of rules 1971. On a plain reading of Rule 10 leaves no room for doubt that in a very limited circumstances the proceedings could continue after attaining the age of superannuation but on the other hand such a proceedings could not be continued where there is no pecuniary loss suffered. So, unless there is a definite charge against the petitioner that he has caused financial loss to the Government while he was in service committing great misconduct or negligence the proceedings could not be continued. A perusal of the charge sheet would go to show that there is no charge of pecuniary loss to the Government. The Division Bench has the occasion to consider a Full Bench Decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of R. P. Nair and Anr. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1979 Kerala 135 where the Full Bench has the occasion to consider a similar provision as the Rule 10 of Rules 1971 and the Full bench has taken the view that the Rules does not authorise the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding against the Government servants after his retirement. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1979 Kerala 135 where the Full Bench has the occasion to consider a similar provision as the Rule 10 of Rules 1971 and the Full bench has taken the view that the Rules does not authorise the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding against the Government servants after his retirement. Both on principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the cases referred to to the said judgment placing reliance on AIR 1979 Kerala 135 and other cases referred to in the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court and even otherwise on the normal interpretation there may not be any other interpretation possible except the one that in a very limited class of cases a proceeding may continue but if the case is not cored under Rule 10 of Rules 1971 the proceedings cannot continue. This is one of such cases where the provisions of Rule 10 (1) are not attracted and the proceedings may not continue. The idea behind introducing Rule 10 of Rules 1971 is that once a person has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation neither he can be dismissed nor he can be removed from service unless his case falls within the four corners of Rule 10 of the said rules, that is financial loss caused to the Government and compensate that pecuniary loss, the proceedings may be completed and from the retiremental benefits if a deduction permissible appropriate orders be passed in this regard. So far as the Chargesheet Annexure 'b' to the writ petition mainly the charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner was having disproportionate income and certain transactions were carried on without obtaining permission of the appointing authority contravening Rule 15 of Clause 2 of the West Bengal Government Servant Conduct Rule 1959. In the normal course the words of the statute must prima facie be given the ordinary meaning. While considering this question the Division Bench has observed as follows:"7. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given the ordinary meaning. It is well settled principle of interpretation that court seek to cut down technicalities attended upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purpose of the rule. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given the ordinary meaning. It is well settled principle of interpretation that court seek to cut down technicalities attended upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purpose of the rule. The intention of the rule making authority is clear that the departmental proceeding initiated during the period when a person is in service could only be continued for some purpose and any other construction would result in violence to the words used in the Rule. Plain words are necessary to establish intention to interfere with the right to receive pension which is a property. Persons should not be subjected by law to any sort of detriment unless this is imposed by clear words. Brett J said in Dickenson v. Tletchar (1873) L R 9 Chapter 1 at page 7 that "those who contend that a penalty may be inflicted must show that the words of the Act distinctly enact that it shall be incurred under the present circumstances. They must fail if the words are merely equally capable of a construction that would and one that would not, inflict the penalty. The principle against doubtful penalisation is an aspect of legal policy. A person is not to be put in peril upon an ambiguity. The scope of this rule has to be constituted keeping in mind the concept of social and economical justice enshrined in the Constitution. After retirement from service a person has no means of livehood except the retirement benefits which he had earned rendering 30/40 years of service and such an old age security cannot be allowed to be denied by allowing a departmental proceeding initiated for the misconduct which had not resulted in pecuniary loss caused to the Government. If any other contrary interpretation is made to Rule 10 (1) of the said Rule that would result in a disproportionate countermischief and it is not the rule that in order to supress one mischief the legislature intends to visit a disproportionate counter-mischief:"a perusal of the Death-Cum-Retiremental benefit Rules would go to show that there is a provision for withdrawing or withholding pension or any part of it. The retiremental benefit is in substance is a property of an employee earned during the course of his service and it should not be taken consideration determining the question whether the departmental proceedings initiated earlier should continue after the retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. Any interpretation to the contrary that the proceedings may continue after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation will go against the provisions of the Rules and counter-rule, the Death-Cum-Retiremental Benefit Rules. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case the charge-sheet, Annexure 'b' to the writ petition, issued to the petitioner continuing the departmental proceedings after retirement of petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation is hereby set aside and accordingly, the petitioner will be entitled to the retirement benefits admissible to him in accordance with law which will be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order including pension, gratuity, provident fund and other retiremental benefits. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Annexure 'b', Charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to pay the retiremental benefits to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order passed by this Court. There will be no order as to costs. Petition succeeds.