The right to a reasonably expeditious speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, and the government is obligated to ensure a reasonably expeditious trial and determine the petitioner's liability without waiting for the verdict in the criminal trial.

1. The question in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Government of Kerala has, under Rule 3 of Chapter I of Part III Kerala Service Rules, the authority to withhold the pensionery benefits payable to the Petitioner on the sole ground that a criminal case of misappropriation of public money is pending against him.

2. The Petitioner retired on 28-2-1991 as the Principal, Extension Training Centre, Kottarakara. In 1981-82 he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- for the purpose of purchasing Charkas. He is alleged to have misappropriated this amount and other sums of money. The event occurred in 1981-82. A Criminal Case No. 4 of 1987 of the vigilance Police Station, Quilon is pending against him. As a result of this, the Respondents, the State of Kerala and the Commissioner of Rural Development, granted him only anticipatory pension of Rs. 829/- per month and denied full pension of Rs. 1,106/- permonth, death-cum¬retirement gratuity of Rs. 35,680/-and the commuted value of pension of Rs. 60,572/-.

3. Rule 3 under which the Respondents have purported to act, occurs in Part III which is titled "PENSION". Under Rule 3 the Government reserve to itself two rights:

(i) the right of withholding or withdrawing of pension or any part of it. and

(ii) the right of ordering the recovery from pension the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Government.

These two rights of the Government are subject to two conditions:

(a) In the departmental proceeding the pensioner must be found guilty of misconduct or negligence during the period of service, or

(b) In a judicial proceeding such pensioner is found guilty or grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service.

4. In this case, there is no question of departmental proceeding. The proceeding which is pending and which is the reason for withholding the pension is the judicial criminal proceeding which commenced in 1987. The Explanation to Rule 3 explains when the departmental or judicial proceeding shall he deemed to have been instituted. The judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted, in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the dale on which the, complaint or report of the police on which the Magistrate takes cognisance, is made. In this case, admittedly, the case commenced on 16-5-1987.

5. After laying down that the loss caused to the Government may be recovered from the pension, Note 2 to Rule 3 lays down that the word' 'pension' does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity and that the liability 'fixed' against an employee can be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without reference to the judicial proceedings referred to in the Rule. However, a reasonable opportunity to explain must be given to the employee/ pensioner.

6. In order that the Government exercises its power to withhold or withdraw a pension or it recovers the liabilities from the death-cum-retirement gratuity under Note 2 of R.3, the loss caused to the Government which is the basis of the liability has to be determined. According to the Respondents, until the criminal court determines whether the Petitioner misappropriated the amount, the decision to recover the amount from the Petitioner's pension cannot be taken. Since the liability of the employee cannot be fixed without the verdict of the criminal court, the pension had to be withheld till then. Is this position and attitude adopted by the government valid and tenable ? I will endeavor an. answer to this question in the following paragraphs.

7. The Case No. 4/87 is still pending. While the Government undoubtedly has a right to recover the misappropriated amount, it does not mean that the pension and gratuity should be withheld indefinitely or for an unreasonably long period? The State employed the petitioner. The petitioner served the State till the pension able age. The State also runs the machinery for prosecuting the criminals. The right to speedy trial has been recog