The court emphasized the need for a thorough assessment of the employee's entire service before reducing pension under Rule 59. It also found that the orders withholding pension were passed in a colorable exercise of power.

The petitioner, a retired Head Master, is challenging Ext. P1 order by which an amount of Rs. 251- per month has been ordered to be withheld from his pension and Ext. P5 order where by the Government has confirmed it in a review petition filed by him. The main prayer in the O.P. is to quash Exts. P1 and P5 orders.

2. The relevant facts are not in dispute and are thus: While in service petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 23-1-1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. However, he was reinstated in service on 24-3-1986 and was allowed to retire on superannuation from service on 31-3-1986. Thereafter as per order dated 18-4-1986 the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was referred to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings constituted under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 (for short "the Tribunal rules"). The Tribunal concluded enquiry in August, 1987 and submitted Ext. P6 report dated 25-8-1987. Based upon Ext. P6 report, Ext. P1 order was passed by the first respondent-State dated 2-11-1988. Paragraphs of Ext. P1 order would show that the Vigilance Tribunal found the petitioner guilty of allegation Nos. 1,3 and 4 and has recommended a punishment of with holding of a sum of Rs.25/- from the monthly pension of the petitioner permanently. Charges 2 and 5 were found to be not established. Paragraph 4 of Ext. P1 would further show that the Government after a careful consideration of the report of the Tribunal with reference to the connected records of the case has come to a conclusion that the service of the petitioner has not been thoroughly satisfactory. On the basis of the conclusion so reached a provisional decision was taken to withhold a sum of Rs. 25/- per month from the pension of the petitioner permanently under Rule 59 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short "the KSR") and a show cause notice was accordingly served on the petitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Government has confirmed the provisional decision while issuing Ext. P1 order. Against Et. P1 order the petitioner filed Ext. P2 review petition as provided in note (1) added to Rule 59 Part 111 KSR under which Rule Ext. P1 order is purported to have been issued. As per Ext. P5 order first respondent has rejected Ext. P2 review petition as without any merit. Regarding the period during which the petitioner was suspended no order regularising the said period was passed at the time of filing the O.P. inspite of the fact that this Court has directed the Government to pass final orders regularising the period of suspension of the petitioner within a period not exceeding three months from the date of Ext. P4 judgment dated 30-5-1989. The O.P. was filed on 22-12-1989 and Ext. P3 representation submitted by the petitioner for passing orders regularising his suspension period was pending even at the time of filing of the O.P. Petitioner has in the circumstances prayed for quashing of Exts. PI and P5 orders and for a further direction to he issued to the first respondent to regularise the period of suspension during which the petitioner was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying Exts. P1 and P5 orders and stating that order regularising the suspension period of the petitioner has already been passed on 17-12-1990. Though in the counter affidavit it was stated that a copy of the order dated 17-12-1990 is being produced along with the counter affidavit marked as Ext. P1 no such copy was actually produced along with the counter. However, a copy has been produced in the course of arguments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abdul Gafoor, has challenged Exts. P1 and P5 orders on several grounds. It was contended that at the relevant time when the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was referred to the Tribunal, the petitioner was not an'Officer under the rule-making cont