JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The prayers in the instant Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows (See Page No. 8 of the paper-book of this O.P): “(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 order in O.A. No. 2026/2018 dated 9.11.2018 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Thiruvananthapuram and set aside the same. (ii) Any other appropriate Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri. P.V. Mohanan, learned Advocate instructed by Sri. P.N. Biju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal and Sri. B. Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the OP/respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-2 Original Application, O.A. No. 2026/2018 filed by the petitioner herein before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench are as follows (See Page No. 30 of this paper-book): “(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A2 proceeding and direct the respondents to sanction and disburse Full Pension, Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity and commuted value of pension to the applicant by reckoning the qualifying service of 24 years with all consequential benefits including 9% interest per annum for delayed payment from the date of due till the date of actual disbursement. (ii) Any other appropriate order, direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit in the interest of justice.” 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P-1 final order dated 09.11.2018 in O.A. No. 2026/2018, whereby the main pleas of the petitioner for quashment of the impugned Anx.A2 order and for directions for disbursal of DCRG, full pension and commuted value of pension, etc. have been declined on the ground that though the judicial proceeding has been concluded by the judgment of conviction rendered by the criminal court, the same has to be treated as continuing as the petitioner/applicant has filed a criminal appeal to challenge the said judgment of conviction and since the appeal is to be treated as continuation of the original proceedings, the original judicial proceedings should be treated as continuing even now and hence no final orders can be passed under Rule 3 Part-III Kerala Service Rules (KSR), etc. It is this impugned final order rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P-1 that is under challenge in this original petition. 5. The facts in this case are not disputed. While the petitioner was serving as Agricultural Officer in the Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare Department, a vigilance case was registered against him as crime by way of FIR in a vigilance case was registered against him on 14.09.2007. The case was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kollam unit in the FIR/Crime, V.C. No. 7/2007/Kollam, alleging that the petitioner has committed offences as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 409, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Later it appears that the vigilance police authorities concerned viz. the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had completed the criminal investigation and had filed the final report/charge sheet, pursuant to which the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner which led to the institution of calendar case, C.C. No. 17/2012 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. It is later that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2017. Subsequently, the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, has completed the trial in this case and has pronounced judgment dated 06.08.2018 in C.C. No. 17/2012, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as the offences as per Sections 409, 468, 471 and 120 B of the IPC. 6. After the retirement of the petitioner on 31.05.2017 and before the rendering of the judgment of conviction by the criminal court on 06.08.2018, the competent authority has taken recourse to the proceedings under Rule 3A of Part III KSR, whereby full pension as well as gratuity has been withheld and only provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 06.10.2017. 7. It is thereafter, that the petitioner has filed the instant Ext.P2 O.A. No. 2026/2018 on 22.10.2018 with the aforementioned prayers. 8. 7. It is thereafter, that the petitioner has filed the instant Ext.P2 O.A. No. 2026/2018 on 22.10.2018 with the aforementioned prayers. 8. One of the main contentions raised by the respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal was to the effect that though the criminal court has concluded the judicial proceedings by rendering a judgment of conviction of the petitioner on 06.08.2018, the petitioner has filed a criminal appeal to challenge the said judgment of conviction as criminal appeal No. 1025/2018 before this Court, in which this Court has ordered to suspend the sentence imposed on him, etc. and that therefore, since the appeal is to be treated as a continuance of the original judicial proceedings, the judicial proceedings within the meaning of Rule 3 Part III KSR should be treated as still continuing and therefore the respondents are not in a position to pass final orders under Rule 3 Part III KSR in the matter in respect of the allegations arising out of the said judicial proceedings and to pay anything more than the provisional pension already paid to the petitioner and that hence the plea of the petitioner for full pensionary benefits, commuted value of pension and for release of the full gratuity amount, etc. cannot be made by them, etc. The said plea of the respondents appears to have been conceded to by the Tribunal who has also clearly held in the impugned final order at Ext.P1 that though the judicial proceedings before the criminal court has been concluded by the judgment of conviction, rendered against the petitioner on 06.08.2018, as the petitioner himself has filed a criminal appeal to challenge the said judgment of conviction, it is only to be held that the said judicial proceedings is still continuing and the criminal appeal is to be treated as a continuation of the original judicial proceedings, which is instituted before the criminal court, etc. 9. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that the matter in issue is covered against the respondent State as per the dictum ratio of recidendi laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 17.02.2021 in W.A. No. 1407/2018 (arising out of W.P. (C) No. 42482/2018), which pertain to a similar case in the Travancore Devaswom Board, who has adopted the abovesaid provisions contained in Rule 3 Part III KSR. The said view rendered by this Court in the judgment dated 17.02.2021 in W.A. No. 1407/2019 has already been subsequently followed by this Court in a case affecting a retired employee of the State Government as per the judgment of the Division Bench rendered on 23.02.2012 in OP (KAT) No. 22/2021. 10. It will be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Rule 3 Part III KSR, which reads as follows:- “(a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. (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 Government 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 employee during his service. (c) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted, save with the sanction of the Government, in respect of a cause of action which arose or an even which took place more than four years before such institution. (d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed.” 11. The provisions contained in Ruling No. 1, Ruling No. 2 and Ruling No. 3 appended under the Notes to Rule 3 Part III KSR are not extracted hereunder as they are not very relevant in the facts of this case. 12. (d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed.” 11. The provisions contained in Ruling No. 1, Ruling No. 2 and Ruling No. 3 appended under the Notes to Rule 3 Part III KSR are not extracted hereunder as they are not very relevant in the facts of this case. 12. A reading of the provisions contained in Rule 3, more particularly, the operative portion of Rule 3 would make it clear that the said Rule empowers the Government to reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a person of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Clause (a) and Clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 3 are in respect of departmental proceedings covered therein and are not very relevant in this case inasmuch as admittedly no such departmental proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner either before retirement or after his retirement. 13. In the instant case what is relevant is the institution of judicial proceedings as contemplated in Clause (c) of the proviso to Rule 3 read with Clause 3 of the explanation appended to Rule 3 of Part III KSR. Clause (c) of the proviso to Rule 3 would make it clear that no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted when the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted, save with the sanction of the Government, in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution, etc. Further, Clause (b) to the explanation appended to the proviso to Rule III would make it clear that a judicial proceeding shall deemed to be instituted, in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or the report of the police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizances, is made, etc. Further, Clause (b) to the explanation appended to the proviso to Rule III would make it clear that a judicial proceeding shall deemed to be instituted, in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or the report of the police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizances, is made, etc. In the instant case, even before the retirement of the petitioner on 06.08.2018, a crime by way of FIR in a vigilance case is pending has registered by the competent authority of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on 14.09.2007. Later, the Vigilance Police has completed the investigation and has filed the Final Report/Charge Sheet/Police Report as envisaged in Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, on which cognizance has been taken by the said court in the year 2012, which has led to the institution of the Calendar Case, C.C. No. 17/2012 on the file of the court of Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence, it can be seen that the Final Report/Charge Sheet/Police Report has been duly filed by the Vigilance Police in the year 2012, on which cognizance has also been taken by the competent criminal court in the year 2012. This is before the retirement of the petitioner on 06.08.2018. So, it is only to be held that the judicial proceedings within the meaning of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR was already instituted even before the retirement of the petitioner on 06.08.2018. In that view of the matter, it was right on the part of the respondents in having passed an order under Rule 3A Part III KSR to withhold the full pension of the petitioner and to pay only provisional pension. The matter regarding the withholding of the DCRG by the very same proceedings issued under Rule 3A Part III KSR will be dealt hereinafter and separately. 14. However, the indisputable fact of the matter is that the criminal court has rendered the judgment of conviction in this case on 06.08.2018. The matter regarding the withholding of the DCRG by the very same proceedings issued under Rule 3A Part III KSR will be dealt hereinafter and separately. 14. However, the indisputable fact of the matter is that the criminal court has rendered the judgment of conviction in this case on 06.08.2018. So, it is only to be held that the judicial proceedings envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR as well as in Clause (b) of the explanation appended to Rule 3 Part III KSR stands terminated on and with effect from 06.08.2018 on account of the conclusion of the trial and the rendering of judgment though one of conviction. Irrespective as to whether the judgment is one of conviction or acquittal of the accused, makes no difference as far as the legal effect of the termination of the judicial proceedings. On the rendering of the judgment of conviction by the criminal court, it is only to be held that the judicial proceedings as contemplated in the abovesaid provisions of Rule 3 Part III KSR stands terminated. There are no provisions in Rule 3 Part III KSR whereby it is envisaged or deemed that on account of a criminal appeal that may be filed either by the state or by the accused, the judicial proceedings on account of the criminal trial already concluded by the criminal trial court will stand extended for the purpose of prolonging the process of Rule 3 Part III KSR or prolonging the interim arrangement envisaged in Rule 3A Part III KSR. So long as there are no provisions either in Part III KSR either in Rule 3 or Rule 3A of Part III KSR or any such provision in Part III KSR, to that effect it cannot be said that there is any process of further extending the proceedings so as to prolong the temporary withholding of the retirement benefits due to a pensioner, any longer after the conclusion of the trial process by the criminal court. If the statutory provision contained any such extension process, on filing of a criminal appeal things could have been different. Since there is no such provision in the Rule, the property right of the petitioner to enjoy the pension, which is his precious proprietary right envisaged in Article 300 A of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived or prolonged, any further. Since there is no such provision in the Rule, the property right of the petitioner to enjoy the pension, which is his precious proprietary right envisaged in Article 300 A of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived or prolonged, any further. It is trite that pension cannot be seen as a mere bounty given by the Government or the employer, but it is the precious property right of the pensioner concerned. Such a right to pension is a right to property though no longer a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India but is still guaranteed as a constitutional right in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is trite that right to property in terms of Article 300A can be deprived only in accordance with the procedure which is established by law and such a procedure should also be just, fair and reasonable. So long as the statutory procedure envisaged in Rule 3 Part III KSR does not envisage or deem the continuance of the judicial proceedings even after the conclusion of the trial process, merely on account of filing of a criminal appeal either by the accused or by the State or the complainant, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings within the meaning of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR read with Clause (b) of the explanation appended thereunder can be said to be continued even after the conclusion of the trial process. Any such interpretation would be nothing but invading and depriving the precious constitutional right to property without a statutory procedure at all. That apart, such a method cannot be said to be just, fair and reasonable. In that view of the matter, it is ordered and declared that the view taken by the Tribunal on the basis of the contention of the respondents in the O.A. that merely because the petitioner/accused has filed a criminal appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction, would result in a situation of further prolonging the agony of the temporary withholding of pensionary benefits. It has to be also borne in mind that the instant case is one of judgment of conviction of the petitioner/accused, which is the worst case scenario against him and the best case scenario in favour of the employer. It has to be also borne in mind that the instant case is one of judgment of conviction of the petitioner/accused, which is the worst case scenario against him and the best case scenario in favour of the employer. In such a case, necessarily, the accused will be constrained to exercise his right to prosecute appeal directly in terms of the special enactment or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely because the pensioner/accused is invoking the right to file criminal appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction cannot be used against him to further prolong the agony that he has already faced. In other words, the view taken by the Tribunal on the basis of the contention of the respondents in the O.A. that the judicial proceedings cannot be said to have been terminated and it is still continuing merely on account of the criminal appeal filed by the accused against the aforesaid judgment of conviction is illegal and unreasonable. 15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Government, which is the competent authority in terms of Rule 3 Part III KSR has to necessarily pass final orders under Rule 3 Part III KSR on the crucial issue as to whether the above said judgment of conviction rendered against the petitioner by the criminal court would disclose a case of grave misconduct or negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to justify any action for permanent or temporary withholding of or withdrawing of pension as envisaged in Rule 3 Part III KSR. More aspects regarding this will be dealt with hereinafter after dealing with the matters relating to the claim of the petitioner for DCRG. 16. It is pertinent to note that Note 2 of Rule 3 of Part III KSR clearly mandates that the word ‘pension’ used in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR does not include DCRG. In other words, the ‘pension’ used in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR would take in only pension simpliciter and not to DCRG. That be so, there is no question of withholding even temporarily the DCRG due to the pensioner merely on account of proceedings as contemplated in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR. In other words, the ‘pension’ used in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR would take in only pension simpliciter and not to DCRG. That be so, there is no question of withholding even temporarily the DCRG due to the pensioner merely on account of proceedings as contemplated in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR. However, the respondents in the O.A. justify even the temporary withholding of DCRG on account of the provisions contained in Rule 3A Part III KSR, which is only an interlocutory arrangement pending finalisation of the proceedings in terms of Rule 3 Part III KSR and which has been introduced by way of a subsequent amendment. The Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Chandran vs. LSG Department, 2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB) had held categorically and unequivocally that the 2nd limb of Rule 3A of Part III KSR to the extent it authorises the competent authority to even temporarily withhold the DCRG in view of the pendency of proceedings in terms of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR is arbitrary, unreasonable and is even ultra-vires and the said provision in the 2nd limb of Rule 3A has been struck down. This is so as Note 1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR clearly mandates that the word ‘pension’ as appearing in the operative portion of Rule Part III KSR will not be inclusive of DCRG. Since that be so, even if the proceedings in terms of Rule 3 Part III KSR is finalised against the pensioner, at best only pension simpliciter alone can be the subject matter of withholding or withdrawal either temporarily or permanently in terms of that Rule and not the DCRG. After finalisation of the proceedings under Rule 3 Part III KSR, DCRG cannot be touched in view of the abovesaid provision contained in Note 1 Part III KSR. So it is only logical and reasonable that there is no question of even temporarily withholding the DCRG merely on account of the pendency of proceedings in terms of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR. Therefore, at best only the full pension could be withheld so that provisional pension could be sanctioned as envisaged in the first limb of Rule 3A of Part III KSR. Therefore, at best only the full pension could be withheld so that provisional pension could be sanctioned as envisaged in the first limb of Rule 3A of Part III KSR. It is in the light of these aspects that the Full Bench has categorically held and declared the legal position in Chandran's case (supra) that the 2nd limb of Rule 3A of Part III KSR to the extent it even authorises the temporary withholding of the DCRG merely on account of the pendency of proceedings in terms of Rule 3 of Part III KSR is illegal, unreasonable and ultra-vires and the said provision has been struck down. For reasons stated in detail, the Division Bench of this Court, after elaborate discussion, in the judgment dated 17.02.2021 in W.A. No. 1407/2019 has held that though the Apex Court has granted stay of the operation and enforcement of the judgment of the jurisdictional court in Chandran's case (supra), the same will not amount to stay of the Division Bench in the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in the said decision in other reported cases, in the manner known to law. After citing various decisions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, this Court has held that since the stay order in the SLP filed by the State is only stay of the operation and enforcement of the judgment in Chandran's case (supra), the same cannot amount to stay of the ratio of recidendi of the decision of the Full Bench in that case and that this Court is obliged in law to follow the dictum of ratio of recidendi laid down by the Full Bench in Chandran's case (supra) in other cases, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The Full Bench has thus held in Chandran's case that since the 2nd limb of Rule 3A of Part III KSR is ultra-vires and illegal, there is no question of even temporarily withholding the DCRG merely on account of the pendency of the proceedings in terms of Rule 3 Part III KSR and hence the DCRG amount has to be disbursed to the pensioner in any view of the matter. Hence, the temporary withholding of the DCRG by purportedly invoking the provisions in Rule 3A of Part III KSR is illegal and ultra-vires in this case and the petitioner is also entitled for reasonable interest. 18. Yet another matter to be examined is as to whether any liabilities, which could have been otherwise quantified and finalised without resort to the judicial proceedings under the recovery proceedings envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR and as envisaged in Note 2 of Rule 3 Part III KSR are available in this case. However, it is trite by now that any such liabilities could have been otherwise ascertained and finalised without resort to any judicial proceedings/departmental proceedings would have been so quantified and finalised with due notice to the pensioner within an outer time limit of 3 years from the date of retirement of the pensioner in view of the mandate contained in Note 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. The said 3 year period in the case of the petitioner has expired as early as on 31.05.2020. The respondents do not have any case that any such liabilities have been duly ascertained and quantified with due prior notice to the petitioner within an outer time limit of 3 years from the date of retirement, which in the instant case has expired as early as on 31.05.2020. In other words, the respondents herein are legally obliged and liable forthwith release the DCRG to the petitioner and since the retention of the DCRG is illegal and ultra-vires the petitioner is also entitled for reasonable interest from the date of retirement upto the date of actual payment. 19. Hence, it is ordered that the respondents will immediately release the full amount of DCRG to the petitioner along with the interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum for a period from 2 months after his retirement viz. 01.08.2017, upto the date of actual payment. 19. Hence, it is ordered that the respondents will immediately release the full amount of DCRG to the petitioner along with the interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum for a period from 2 months after his retirement viz. 01.08.2017, upto the date of actual payment. It is further ordered that in case the respondents in the O.A. does not pay the said full amount of DCRG along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum at the time limit stipulated hereinabove, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, then the said interest amount will stand enhanced at the rate of 8% per annum from 01.08.2017 upto the date of actual payment of the full amount of DCRG to the petitioner. 20. Now, we have to come back to the main issue relating to passing of final orders in terms of Rule 3 Part III KSR in view of the termination of the judicial proceedings. The competent authority of the Government will immediately issue show cause notice to the petitioner, and may immediately examine the judgment of conviction rendered in this case by the court of Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge on 06.08.2018 in C.C. No. 17/2012 and may decide as to whether a prima facie case has been made against the petitioner on the basis of the said judgment that he has committed gave misconduct or negligence within the meaning of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR. If that be so, a show cause notice should be issued to the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment pointing out the factual circumstances disclosed in the said judgment of conviction and as to the provisional view of the Government as to how has been involved manner a case of grave misconduct and negligence is made against the petitioner on the basis of the fact findings in the said judgment of conviction rendered by the criminal court. 21. 21. The petitioner may file his reply thereto to the said show cause notice and the competent authority of the Government, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either in person or through his authorised representative/counsel, if any, if he so chooses and may pass final orders in terms of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR and also take a decision as to whether the said fact findings in the judgment of conviction rendered by the criminal court would disclose the case of grave misconduct or negligence as understood in the said Rule and if so, whether any part of the pension of the petitioner should be temporarily or permanently withheld or withdrawn, etc. as conceived in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR. In that regard it has to be borne in mind that in view of the provision contained in Note 1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR, the amount of pension that could be legally withheld under the said Rule should not exceed 1/3rd of the pension originally sanctioned and in fixing the amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should be had to the consideration whether the amount of pension left to the pensioner in any case would be adequate for his maintenance, etc. as conceived in Note 1 of Rule 3 Part III KSR and after due consultation with the Public Service Commission, without any further delay, at any rate, within an outer time limit of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 22. However it is made clear that in case the petitioner succeeds in the criminal appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and the conviction is reversed by the Appellate criminal court, etc. then the abovesaid adverse orders, if any, passed under Rule 3 Part III KSR should be reviewed by the competent authority of the state Government at the appropriate time after the rendering of such criminal appellate judgment by the criminal appellate court, concerned. 23. In the light of these aspects it is ordered that the contra view taken by the Tribunal in the instant case as per the impugned Ext.P1 final order dated 09.11.2018 in O.A. No. 2026/2018 is illegal and improper and the said impugned Ext.P1 order will stand set aside. 24. 23. In the light of these aspects it is ordered that the contra view taken by the Tribunal in the instant case as per the impugned Ext.P1 final order dated 09.11.2018 in O.A. No. 2026/2018 is illegal and improper and the said impugned Ext.P1 order will stand set aside. 24. With these observations and directions the above original petition will stand finally disposed of.