JUDGMENT : The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P6 and P6(a)orders of the 1 st respondent and Exts.P7 and P8 consequential orders, whereby the pension of the petitioner is reduced by 20%. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner retired on superannuation from the service of the 1 st respondent. While he was in service, he was placed under suspension on 16.12.2005 consequent to arrest and detention in connection with the vigilance case No. 4/2005/PTA registered under Section 7, 13(2), read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged incident was that he was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.250/- from a prospective consumer. Consequent to that, a memo of charges and statement of allegations were served on the petitioner, that culminated in Ext.P3, whereby punishment of barring three increments was confirmed with cumulative effect. 3. In the light of Ext.P3, a value of three increments with cumulative effect was recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner which comes to an amount of Rs.2,44,080/-. Subsequent to that, by judgment dated 30.05.2014 in C.C. No.22/2008, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam convicted and sentenced the petitioner for simple imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the same Act, as per Ext.P4. 4. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against Ext.P4 judgment before this Court, which is pending. While the things being so, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.03.2015 proposing to reduce his pension by 20% for ten years invoking Rule (2) of Part III of KSR. Though the petitioner has preferred his reply and an order was passed as per Ext.P6 dated 07.09.2015 whereby directed to reduce 20% of the pension in respect of the petitioner for ten years from 30.11.2008 invoking Rule 2(a) of Part III of KSR, the effective date of recoveries was subsequently corrected from 30.11.2008 to 01.12.2008 as per Ext.P6(a), since the date of effecting recoveries was prior to his retirement. 5. 5. It is submitted by the petitioners that Exts.P6 and P6(a)orders are illegal and arbitrary, since the offence committed by the petitioner was while in service and he was imposed with a punishment as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the parallel proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has culminated in Ext.P4 in the year 2014. Since an action was already taken on the same set of facts, the initiation under the provision of Rule 2 of Part III of KSR will amount to double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the said initiation is against Rule 2(d) of Part III of KSR. This is the background in which the writ petition is preferred on the strength of Full Bench decision of this Court in Ravindran Nair v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 605] 6. In response to that a counter afÏdavit has been filed, wherein it is contended that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Vigilance Court, Kottayam. But as per Rule 2(a) and 90(12) of Part III KSR, future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and Government may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period. Therefore, consequent to the conviction and sentence by the Vigilance Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to reduce the pension by 20% for ten years invoking Rule 2 Part III of KSR. The petitioner has resisted the same by stating that he already preferred an appeal petition against the judgment in C.C. No.22 of 2008 dated 30.05.2014 and was waiting for final verdict. However, declining the contentions, the board has taken a decision to confirm the proposal to reduce 20% of pension for ten years by Ext.P6 with effect from 01.12.2008. 7. It is also contended that Rule 2(a) Part III of KSR clearly stipulates that the Government have ample power to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period, if the petitioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Here in the case on hand, the Vigilance Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him and sentenced him for the serious offence of bribe which tarnished the image of the institution. Here in the case on hand, the Vigilance Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him and sentenced him for the serious offence of bribe which tarnished the image of the institution. Therefore, issuance of Exts.P6 and P6(a)are perfectly justified. In the light of said findings, Exts.P7 and P8 consequential orders were issued. 8. In support of the contention, the respondents have come up with reported decision in order to refuse the contention of the petitioner in the light of Full Bench decision of this Court in Raveendran Nair (supra) by pointing out a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajastan v. B.K.Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417] , wherein it was held that the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the petitioner is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be. Whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. In the case on hand, the petitioner was convicted by the Vigilance Court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment with fine under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The departmental proceedings culminated earlier in the punishment of barring his three increments with cumulative effect which was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. Since the judicial proceedings sentenced him for punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is a sufÏcient ground to invoke the provision under Rule 2 of Part III of KSR. Accordingly, steps have been initiated and culminated in Exts.P6 and P6(a) and consequential orders were issued by the Board as per Exts.P7 and P8. 9. The counsel for the respondents also brought my attention to two more decisions; Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar [2001 KHC 573] , in which the issue of double jeopardy has been considered, where an Army personnel was proceeded under the Army Act as well as the Central Act, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. The counsel for the respondents also brought my attention to two more decisions; Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar [2001 KHC 573] , in which the issue of double jeopardy has been considered, where an Army personnel was proceeded under the Army Act as well as the Central Act, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Similarly, another decision in Civil Appeal No.1804 of 2020 in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah , that pertains to Regulation 39(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, wherein disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee of LIC, in which the Regulation 39(4)(i) empowers the Life Insurance Corporation to impose punishment on an employee on the ground of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge. In that case, it was held by the Apex Court that the LIC is sufÏciently empowered to proceed independently against the employee irrespective of the criminal proceedings. On the strength of these judgments, the counsel for the respondents try to establish that there is no element of double jeopardy, as contended by the petitioner. 10. In response to that the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, that is not an answer to the contentions of the Full Bench in Raveendran Nair (supra), wherein Rule 2 of Part III of KSR is specifically considered, where it is explained by the court that the Government has power to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of a grave misconduct even after retirement. When the Government has power to impose punishment of withholding or withdrawing pension of a pensioner in respect of grave misconduct committed after he became a pensioner, there would be no logic in the interpretation that the Government does not have the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it, of the pensioner on he being found guilty of grave misconduct committed by him while he was in service unless the misconduct involved pecuniary loss to the Government. The Government has the right to impose on a pensioner the punishment of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it either permanently or for a specified period, if in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, even if the misconduct and negligence do not involve pecuniary loss to the Government and that in a case of grave misconduct involving pecuniary loss to the Government, Government can exercise both the rights of withholding/withdrawing pension as punishment and recovering the pecuniary loss from the pension. 11. I have heard Sri.P.M.Pareeth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 12. I have considered the arguments raised on both sides.On considering the facts involved in this case it appears that while the petitioner was in service he was caught red handed by the Vigilance Department on alleged charges of bribe of Rs.250/-. On the basis of that he was charge sheeted under Section 7, 13(2)read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and he was arrested and remanded. In the light of such arrest and remand, the respondent-Board proceeded under the disciplinary action contemplated under the provisions of Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969, which culminated in Ext.P3, whereby a punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect was confirmed and in the light of said imposition of punishment, initiation of disciplinary proceedings was issued on 22.11.2011. By the time the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2008. 13. Accordingly, three increments which were granted has been recovered with cumulative effect which comes to an amount of Rs.2,44,080/- from the DCRG. Thereafter, the criminal proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has culminated in Ext.P4, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced with simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs.5,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act. The said proceedings were culminated only in the year 2014. This is the circumstance in which the Board has proceeded against the petitioner by invoking Rule 2 of Part III KSR. The said proceedings were culminated only in the year 2014. This is the circumstance in which the Board has proceeded against the petitioner by invoking Rule 2 of Part III KSR. In these circumstances, it is apposite to reproduce the said provision under Rule 2 Part III of KSR; 2. (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of a pension.- The Government may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. (b) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law action under clause (a) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. (c) In a case not falling under clause (b), if the Government under clause (a) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order under clause (a), (i) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit within fifteen days of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed, his explanation for such misconduct. (ii) take the explanation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under sub-clause (i) into consideration. (d) The Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. The said provision contemplates to initiate action in future on the background that the pension is granted on a condition that the pensioner is bound to maintain future conduct good while receiving pension. 14. It is the case of the Board that while he was imposed with a punishment by the Vigilance Court, they are entitled to invoke the said provision. But, I cannot agree with the said view held by the Board in the premises that they have already proceeded parallelly against the petitioner and culminated in imposing punishments of barring his next three increments with cumulative effect and to treat the period he spent under suspension as suspension itself as per Ext.P3. The petitioner has no such case against Ext.P3. The petitioner has no such case against Ext.P3. The petitioner has not raised any challenge against the parallel proceedings on the same set of facts by the department as well as the Vigilance Court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 15. Later, when the criminal proceedings culminated in Ext.P4, it is taken by the Board that it is a misconduct occurred after the retirement. Therefore, they are entitled to proceed under Rule 2. I cannot agree with that view because by the very heading of the said provision it appears that future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of a pension, that is in cases where the pensioner is involved in any subsequent criminal activity and that has been charged under the provisions of criminal proceedings and culminated in some punishment, the Government can invoke the said provision. Here, what happened is that the petitioner has already proceeded under the disciplinary action and culminated in Ext.P3. On the same set of facts due to some delay occurred in the criminal proceedings the judgment came bit late, that is after his retirement, that may not be a reason to invoke Rule 2 of Part III of KSR. Because, he was already imposed with a penalty under the provisions of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 and parallel criminal proceedings culminated in Ext.P4 judgment, where punishment is also imposed and the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment which is pending even on today. 16. The other fact which is brought to my attention is that while the appeal is pending before this Court, the petitioner expired on 24.12.2020. Under such circumstances, the legal heirs of the petitioner have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. 17. Now, the question remains to be answered is that whether the imposition of punishment as per Ext.P6 amount to double jeopardy as contended by the petitioners and the invoking of said punishment without consulting with the Public Service Commission as per sub-rule (d) of Rule 2 of Part III of KSR. Though detailed counter afÏdavit is filed, nowhere it is stated that the Board has consulted the Public Service Commission under sub-rule (d) of Rule 2 of Part III of KSR. Though detailed counter afÏdavit is filed, nowhere it is stated that the Board has consulted the Public Service Commission under sub-rule (d) of Rule 2 of Part III of KSR. Therefore, I am of the primary view that the statutory prescription under the provisions of Rule 2 is not completed by issuing Ext.P6. 18. The other question is with respect to the element of double jeopardy existing in this case or not. In this case, the petitioner was proceeded parallelly under the provisions of disciplinary action, as contemplated under the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 and as well as under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 19. In both the cases parallel proceedings are completed as per Exts.P3 and P4. The petitioner has challenges not against any of these orders, but against the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Rule 2 in the light of Ext.P4. The initiation of proceedings under Rule 2 of Part III of KSR is on the same set of facts where Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings were culminated. Though appeal petition is pending against Ext.P4 that is not been considered by the Board. Therefore, it appears that there is some force in the contentions raised by the petitioners and also I consider the circumstances that the petitioner expired in the year2020. 20. Hence, I prefer to allow this writ petition by setting aside Exts.P6 and P6(a) and consequential orders as per Exts.P7 and P8. Needless to clarify that the amount which is deducted from the pension already granted has to be restored. Deduction of pension from 01.12.2008 has to be restored till 31.11.2018 and the consequential amount has to be refunded to the legal heirs. If failed to comply with the direction, that will carry future interest at the Bank rate. The refund shall be effected within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The failure to comply with the direction will carry an amount of interest at the prevailing Bank rate. The writ petition is allowed.