JUDGMENT : Arun, J. The petitioner had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to release the DCRG amount of Rs.10,15,740/-due to him under Annexures A2 and A2(a) proceedings with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The facts which led to the filing of the original application, in brief, are as under; The petitioner had joined as Constable in the Kerala Police on 1.9.1981 and had retired as an Assistant Sub Inspector on 30.4.2017, after rendering service for 35 years 7 months and 11 days. The pension amount payable to the petitioner was fixed under Annexure A1 Pension Payment Order and the eligible gratuity amount fixed as per Annexures A2 and A2(a) Gratuity Payment Orders. Even though monthly pension was paid to the petitioner from 1.5.2017 onwards, the gratuity amount was not released. On enquiry, the petitioner came to understand that the gratuity was withheld due to the pendency of two departmental proceedings against him. 2. The first departmental proceedings was based on Annexure A4 Government order dated 16.9.2017, the basis for which was a news paper report that, the petitioner had, on 23.4.2017, misbehaved with three DYFI activists, the youth wing of the ruling party. The incident was alleged to have taken place at the office of the Inspector of Police, Pandalam. The second departmental proceedings was initiated by the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta on the allegation that, in spite of a specific direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta to produce the petitioner's motor car bearing KL-26A-6471 before the court, in connection with the recovery proceedings initiated by the State Bank of Travancore under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner had failed to comply with the order and had thereby committed an act of indiscipline. 3. The petitioner alleged that the departmental proceedings initiated in the month of his retirement was ill-motivated and without substance. It was alleged that the only reason for initiating the proceedings was to delay disbursal of DCRG to the petitioner, thereby causing substantial hardship to the petitioner and his family. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged incident of the petitioner having misbehaved with the DYFI activists on 23.4.2017 had never occurred. It was alleged that the only reason for initiating the proceedings was to delay disbursal of DCRG to the petitioner, thereby causing substantial hardship to the petitioner and his family. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged incident of the petitioner having misbehaved with the DYFI activists on 23.4.2017 had never occurred. As far as the second proceedings is concerned, it was submitted that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.3,15,000/- from the State Bank of Travancore, the repayment of which was defaulted for reasons beyond his control, causing the Bank to initiate SARFAESI proceedings, during the course of which an order for production of the vehicle was issued by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It was submitted that challenging the SARFAESI proceedings and seeking time for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner had approached this Court with WP(C).No.31750 of 2016, which was disposed of under Annexure A7 judgment dated 6.10.2016, directing payment of the entire balance amount in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 4.11.2016. It was hence contended that as on the date on which the Magistrate's Court had directed production of the vehicle, the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of repayment in instalments under Annexure A7 judgment. 4. The Tribunal disposed of the original application holding that in view of Rule 3A of Part III KSR, only provisional pension can be sanctioned to a retired employee, against whom departmental or judicial proceedings is pending. It was therefore held that the DCRG cannot be released until conclusion of the proceedings. The original application was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated against the applicant as per Annexure A4 within a period of three months. It was further observed that on finalisation of the proceedings, the applicant shall be entitled to get the DCRG released immediately. 5. As is the practice these days, which we had occasion to notice in other matters also, the direction of the Tribunal was neither challenged nor complied with. Instead, the respondents filed series of extension petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted extension of time for complying with the directions and in the meanwhile, the Government ordered a re-enquiry against the petitioner which caused the petitioner to file a contempt petition. Instead, the respondents filed series of extension petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted extension of time for complying with the directions and in the meanwhile, the Government ordered a re-enquiry against the petitioner which caused the petitioner to file a contempt petition. Finding the conduct on the part of the respondents in the contempt petition to be prima facie contumacious, the Tribunal passed Annexure A20 order dated 6.12.2018. Later, faced with a situation where its directions were being repeatedly violated, the Tribunal was forced to issue Exhibit P18 order dated 14.3.2019 requiring compliance of its original order within two weeks, failing which the respondent in the contempt petition, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, was directed to appear in person. In purported compliance of the directions in Exhibit P18, the Government issued Exhibit P19 order dated 20.3.2019 directing release of the DCRG amount due to the petitioner within two weeks and to continue with the departmental proceedings against him. Finding that Exhibit P19 was in blatant violation of its original order, inasmuch as the direction was to complete the departmental proceedings and thereafter release the DCRG, the Tribunal issued Exhibit P21 order dated 8.4.2019 requiring the contemnor to appear and explain why he shall not be prosecuted for having attempted to mislead the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Government issued Exhibits P23A and P23B orders finding the petitioner to be innocent of the allegations/charges and exonerating him of all the charges in both the departmental proceedings. 6. The facts of the case reveal a concerted attempt by certain officials in the Police Department to deliberately delay disbursal of DCRG to the petitioner on the strength of frivolous departmental proceedings initiated on the eve of the petitioner's retirement. The Government is vicariously responsible for the highhanded and illegal acts of its officers. It is to be noted that such frivolous departmental proceedings not only result in the benefits due to the employee, arising from his service being delayed, but also in the employee being stigmatized on the eve of his retirement. No Government employee should be put to the ignominy of being falsely accused of indiscipline and the indignity of pleading for his retirement benefits, as if it is a largesse to be disbursed according to the whims and fancies of the superior officials. No Government employee should be put to the ignominy of being falsely accused of indiscipline and the indignity of pleading for his retirement benefits, as if it is a largesse to be disbursed according to the whims and fancies of the superior officials. The legal position that, retirement benefits due to an employee is not a bounty to be disbursed at the will and pleasure of the employer and is on the other hand, a right accrued to the employee by virtue of his service, is no longer res integra. We are appalled at the manner in which the respondents had delayed finalisation of the departmental proceedings and consequently the disbursal of the DCRG, in spite of repeated orders by the Tribunal. We are compelled to express our discontent about the manner in which the Government and its officials had dealt with the orders of the Tribunal. 7. The petitioner having retired from service on 30.4.2017 and the disbursal of DCRG having been delayed for more than two years, the respondents are bound to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the DCRG amount from the date of retirement of the petitioner till disbursal. The amount due towards DCRG, if any, and the interest quotient shall be paid within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the interest will stand enhanced to 12%. The amount paid towards interest to the petitioner shall be recovered from the officials responsible for the delay in disbursal of the DCRG, by proceeding in the manner provided in G.O(P).No.185/2002/Fin. dated 27.3.2002. The original petition is allowed with the above directions. No order as to costs.