JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. 1. A legal point has been raised in the writ petition whether a disciplinary proceeding initiated during the service tenure of an employee automatically vanishes and/or terminates after the employee attains superannuation. 2. The order of suspension and charge-sheet is challenged in this writ petition and this Court passed an interim order permitting the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding but restrained the authorities to pass the final order without the leave of this Court. 3. After conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent authorities took out an application filed under C.A.N. 11572 of 2011 seeking leave to publish the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Instead of disposing of the said application, the Court directed the same to be listed along with the writ petition. 4. By a subsequent application (C.A.N. 4137 of 2014), the petitioner prays for an order directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits with all admissible allowance as the disciplinary proceeding cannot be allowed to continue beyond the date of superannuation of the petitioner. 5. While contending that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "said Rules") and having not culminated into an order, the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to expire its natural death and cannot survive and/or resurrect after date of retirement. 6. When confronted to Rule 9 of the Railways Services (Pension Rules), 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Rules"), the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding contemplated under sub-rule (1) thereof, speaks of a different departmental proceeding than the proceeding initiated under Rule 153 of the said Rules and, therefore, the authorities cannot continue with the departmental proceeding. In other words what is sought to be said is that the departmental proceeding must originate under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and cannot be equated with the departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 153 of the said Rules. To buttress the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Jnanadhir Mohan Sen Sharma v. Union of India and others, (W.P. 8093 (W) of 2003) decided on 16th June, 2004. 7. To buttress the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Jnanadhir Mohan Sen Sharma v. Union of India and others, (W.P. 8093 (W) of 2003) decided on 16th June, 2004. 7. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the pension and the gratuity being a statutory right, that cannot be taken away by initiating a departmental proceeding except where the delinquent is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or where the employer suffered a pecuniary loss. In support of the aforesaid contention, the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case Shri D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and others, reported in 1990 (3) SLR 5. 8. The respondents, however, refutes the aforesaid contention of the petitioner in saying that sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules permits continuance of the departmental proceeding even after the delinquent retires. It is further submitted that sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules does not only provide an independent departmental proceeding but mean such departmental proceeding, which is initiated against the employee and the power of the President is reserved to withhold the pension or gratuity, either fully or in part, if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. 9. Upon reading the unreported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench, it appears that the Co-ordinate Bench has proceeded to hold that the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules applied to a departmental proceeding initiated in terms of the provision contend in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 and does not include the departmental proceeding initiated against the employee under any other Rules than the Pension Rules. 10. Admittedly, the pension can be paid if the employee attains superannuation or under the rules/regulations, the pension is provided. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 though contemplates a departmental or judicial proceeding, but the language employed therein in its literal sense does not envisage an independent departmental proceeding under the Pension Rules. 11. If such narrow and restricted interpretation is given, in my opinion, it would be opposed to purpose and the object for which it is incorporated. The expression "in any departmental or judicial proceeding" and "during the period of his service" are of great significance and cannot be divorced from each other. 11. If such narrow and restricted interpretation is given, in my opinion, it would be opposed to purpose and the object for which it is incorporated. The expression "in any departmental or judicial proceeding" and "during the period of his service" are of great significance and cannot be divorced from each other. If the interpretation tried to be given by the petitioner is accepted then the expression "during the period of his service" is surplusage and carries no meaning. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that the Court shall not interpret the provision of the law to make it unworkable but should adopt such interpretation, which would make the provision workable and cannot be said to be redundant. In any departmental proceeding initiated during the period of service can be given the only meaning where such departmental proceeding is initiated when the pensioner was in service, as the right to get pension arises after the retirement. 13. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules should be harmoniously construed and/or interpreted with sub-rule (1) thereof. Much emphasis is made by the petitioner to the expression "departmental proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1)" appearing at the opening sentence of sub-rule (2) thereof, to say that the expression "departmental proceeding" is relatable to a proceeding initiated under sub-rule (1) thereof. 14. I cannot agree to such interpretation tried to be given by the petitioner. It appears that if a departmental proceeding or the judicial proceeding initiated against the delinquent while in service shall be continued and concluded by the authority in the manner as if the railway servant has continued in service has been expressly provided in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 thereof. 15. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid sub-rules, the legislative intend, which can be gathered therefrom, is that in any departmental and/or judicial proceeding initiated against the delinquent while in service shall be allowed to be continued in the same manner as if the delinquent is in service and the punishment, which can be inflicted after the retirement, is the withholding of the pension or the gratuity, if an authority found the delinquent guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or a pecuniary loss is suffered by the misconduct of the delinquent. The object is to remedy the loss, which the employer suffered and to remedy the sufferance because of the grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. 16. Though the interpretation given by the Co-ordinate Bench may in a particular eventuality be accepted, but after the conjoint reading of the sub-rules provided therein, the interpretation cannot be restricted to a proceeding initiated against the pensioner after retirement. The aforesaid proposition can be fructified by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case Shri D.V. Kapoor (supra), wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that the power of the President to withhold the pension and the gratuity is hedged with the condition that the pensioner is found to have cause pecuniary loss to the employer or is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. It is further held that the pension and the gratuity are the statutory rights and any curtailment of such rights in absence of the statutory power to do so is not permissible. It is further held that if those statutory powers are hedged with certain conditions, unless those conditions are fulfilled, the authorities cannot withhold the pension and the gratuity in these words: "8. It is seen that the President has reserved to himself the right to withhold pension in whole or in part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period or he can recover from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by the Government employee to the Government subject to the minimum. The condition precedent is that in any departmental enquiry or the judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service of the original or one reemployment. The condition precedent thereto is that there should be a finding that the delinquent is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in office, as defined in Rule 8(5), explanation (b) which is an inclusive definition, i.e. the scope is wide of mark dependent on the facts or circumstances in a given case. Myriad situation may arise depending on the ingenuinity with which misconduct or irregularity was committed. It is not necessary to further probe into the scope and meaning of the words `grave misconduct or negligence' and under what circumstances the findings in this regard are held proved. Myriad situation may arise depending on the ingenuinity with which misconduct or irregularity was committed. It is not necessary to further probe into the scope and meaning of the words `grave misconduct or negligence' and under what circumstances the findings in this regard are held proved. It is suffice that charges in this case are that the appellant was guilty of wilful misconduct in not reporting to duty after his transfer from Indian High Commission at London to the Office of External Affairs Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi. The Inquiry Officer found that though the appellant derelicted his duty to report to duty, it is now wilful for the reasons that he could not move due to his wife's illness and he recommended to sympathetically consider the case of the appellant and the President accepted this finding, but decided to withhold gratuity and payment of pension in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. 9. As seen the exercise of the power by the President is hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a finding the President is without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in while or in part permanently or for a specified period, or to order recovery of the pecuniary loss in whole or in part from the pension of the employee, subject to minimum of Rs. 60/-. 10. Rule 9 of the rules empowers the President only to withhold or withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the State in whole or in part subject to minimum. The employee's right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension. The right to gratuity is also a statutory right. The impugned order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension. The right to gratuity is also a statutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor was given an opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure of punishment. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which, the President is empowered to withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold the gratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is devoid of jurisdiction." 17. My endeavour has failed to find out from the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Rules, which was the subject matter, contends the provision like sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. By virtue of the expressed provisions of the Rules that the departmental proceeding shall continue even after the delinquent retires. It does not automatically lead to an inference that the departmental proceeding would suffer a natural death because of the severance in the relationship of employer and employee after the attainment of superannuation. The principle of per incurrium can also be applied where the Co-ordinate Bench has decided the matter contrary to law or statute or to the decision of the earlier Co-ordinate Bench or the Larger Bench on the identical issues. 18. This Court, therefore, does not find that the Co-ordinate Bench decision ever conceived of the situation, which has arisen in the instant writ petition and came to deliver the said judgment upon looking one face of the coin. 19. This Court, therefore, finds that the application being C.A.N. 4137 of 2014 filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to release the retiral benefits is not entertainable and the same is hereby dismissed. The employer is granted a leave to communicate the decision taken by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from date. 20. Since the departmental proceeding has been concluded and this Court has granted leave to the respondents to convey the decision of the disciplinary authority to the petitioner, it has become academic to go into the sustainability of the charge sheet and the order of suspension in this writ petition. 21. In totality, the writ petition and the application being C.A.N. 4137 of 2014 filed by the petitioner are hereby dismissed. 21. In totality, the writ petition and the application being C.A.N. 4137 of 2014 filed by the petitioner are hereby dismissed. The application being C.A.N. 11572 of 2011 filed by the respondents seeking leave is allowed by treating the same as on day's list. Writ Application and CAN 4137 of 2014 dismissed.